controversy at ebu championship
henry...@yahoo.com
at the european open team bridge championships were mentioned on bbo
this evening.
can anyone report the details of the controversy and allegation?
apparently the score was adjusted from 25-0 in favor of the italians to
0-18 in favor of their opponents.
thanks,
henrysun909
justi...@earthlink.net
opposed to hearsay).
--
Justin Lall
http://squeezingthedummy.blogspot.com
li...@sanfranmail.com
too sure they would appreciate being correctly attributed to this
particular thread.
Sadly, I have heard other aspersions cast on this pair prior to this
time, and from extremely credible Italian sources.
How much money did they win at the recent Cavendish, by the way?
This will make for some interesting speculation and talk I am sure.
Cheers -
Lindy
Chris Ryall
>rumors of a controversy involving the italians berotti and lanzarotty
>at the european open team bridge championships were mentioned on bbo
>this evening.
Note EBL - European Bridge League. Not EBU (English)
--
How is it that 4% of World humans can produce 25% of the worlds CO2?
Chris Ryall Wirral UK <cjr...@my.domain>
Douglas Newlands
:Have heard alot of rumors on this. Interested in some facts as well (as
:opposed to hearsay).
The daily bulletins are at http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05Tenerife/Bulletins.htm
and there is no mention of anything untoward.
What is untoward is the difficulties the writers seem to have with getting the
auctions correct and the number of times a spade symbol seems to be where a club
symbol should be.
Dougie
gerb...@hotmail.com
> Buratti and Lanzarotti are the correct spellings, however I'm not
> too sure they would appreciate being correctly attributed to this
> particular thread.
>
> Sadly, I have heard other aspersions cast on this pair prior to this
> time, and from extremely credible Italian sources.
Same for Reese and Shapiro. Extremely credible sources are still just
sources. Show us PROOF.
> How much money did they win at the recent Cavendish, by the way?
Well their owners won about $210,000 (subtracted the auction price) of
which they might have gotten something like 25% perhaps, and then from
the players pool I guess some $20,000 so I guess at least $30,000 each.
Obviously a good profit but how is this relevant?
> This will make for some interesting speculation and talk I am sure.
I hope no one is suggesting this pair is cheating. We've been down that
road before. I will look forward to see the published appeal on what
happened. As it is both teams could have qualified with 16 - 14 for
Lavazza by the way.
Gerben
Ian Payn
<henry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119835241.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
++++No idea, but doubtless N Silver will be laying the law down on the
matter some forty years hence.
Onno Eskes
Buratti-Lanzarotti bid to a vulnerable 6D, missing one ace, with a
trump suit of AK9x opposite J8xxx. Buratti ran dJ... which happened to
be winning since his LHO had Q10x. All other declarers in 6D went down.
Team Barel called the director.
A special committee was formed to look into the case, and they decided
to barr Buratti-Lanzarotti from the teams event and adjust the match
score from 25-2 to 0-18. Jens Auken, who was a member of the committee,
appears to have said afterwards that Lanzarotti (dummy) had looked in
his opponents cards and then tapped a few times with three fingers on
his arm.
The Italians defended by saying they needed a big match score to
qualify, and therefore took a swingy play. However, Norberto Bocchi
called the action "Stupido" and suspected that Buratti must have heard
something in the noisy playing area on this trump position.
www.imp-bridge.nl (in Dutch)
camero...@uk.abnamro.com
Ohhhh nothing like a good bit of gossip !!!! My view is anybody who
does that is either (a) god (b) cheating ..... But fortunately we still
need proof in the bridge arena before hanging people out to dry however
badly it smells. I am amazed the result could be over turned from a
legal viewpoint ? Maybe some legal-eagles can tell us the point of law
under which you are allowed to over turn a result ?
P.S. I am an atheist
gerb...@hotmail.com
camero...@uk.abnamro.com schrieb:
Because the 10 is missing is this play really so outrageous? Let's have
a look.
Plan A: Cash the Ace
Plan B: Run the Jack
All the possible positions:
QTxy - B (A does not win because the 10 is also missing)
QTx y B
QTy x B
Qxy T B
Txy Q A
QT xy AB
Qx Ty AB
Qy Tx AB
Tx Qy A
Ty Qx A
xy QT A
Q Txy A (B does not win because the 10 is also missing)
T Qxy
x QTx
y QTy
- QTxy
Play A gets 8 of 16 positions (about 52%), play B gets 7 of 16
positions (about 44%)
If he's playing for a swing or he has some hints from the lead that LHO
has trump length or anything like this it is hardly "stupido".
Gerben
Georgiana Gates
David Stevenson
Defenders often turn their cards away from declarer to make sure he
cannot see them, while not worrying too much if dummy does. That's
common, and attributable ot human nature.
If dummy attempts to deliberately look at a defender's cards, polite
defenders let him.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.com> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~
RMB
> under which you are allowed to over turn a result ?
It looks as if the offending team have been disqualified from the
competition, including from the match in which the offence took place.
In that case, the non-offending team will get whatever the regulations
say should be awarded to opponents of a disqualified contestant. 18VP
is standard "average plus" for 25VP scale (e.g., what you score against
"Bye" in a round robin).
Robin
1) 18VP is 60% of 30VP, the 25VP scale could be thought of as a
symmetric 30VP with a cutoff at 25VP.
2) "Round Robin" is an unfortunate term (as far as I am concerned):
several TDs (and some players) are more round than I.
Arthur Hoffman
"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nRwWGNJJZ$vCF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
> Georgiana Gates wrote
>>Onno Eskes wrote:
>>> Lavazza played team Barel, both struggling for qualification.
>>> Buratti-Lanzarotti bid to a vulnerable 6D, missing one ace, with a
>>> trump suit of AK9x opposite J8xxx. Buratti ran dJ... which happened to
>>> be winning since his LHO had Q10x. All other declarers in 6D went down.
>>> Team Barel called the director.
>>> A special committee was formed to look into the case, and they decided
>>> to barr Buratti-Lanzarotti from the teams event and adjust the match
>>> score from 25-2 to 0-18. Jens Auken, who was a member of the committee,
>>> appears to have said afterwards that Lanzarotti (dummy) had looked in
>>> his opponents cards and then tapped a few times with three fingers on
>>> his arm.
>>> The Italians defended by saying they needed a big match score to
>>> qualify, and therefore took a swingy play. However, Norberto Bocchi
>>> called the action "Stupido" and suspected that Buratti must have heard
>>> something in the noisy playing area on this trump position.
>>> www.imp-bridge.nl (in Dutch)
>>>
>>Why on earth did the opponents allow the dummy to look at their cards?
>
> Defenders often turn their cards away from declarer to make sure he
> cannot see them, while not worrying too much if dummy does. That's
> common, and attributable ot human nature.
>
> If dummy attempts to deliberately look at a defender's cards, polite
> defenders let him.
At championship events?
Rik ter Veen
"Arthur Hoffman" <ar...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:MMudnYiXdYD...@adelphia.com...
>
> "David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:nRwWGNJJZ$vCF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
> > Georgiana Gates wrote
> >>Onno Eskes wrote:
> >>Why on earth did the opponents allow the dummy to look at their cards?
> >
> > Defenders often turn their cards away from declarer to make sure he
> > cannot see them, while not worrying too much if dummy does. That's
> > common, and attributable ot human nature.
> >
> > If dummy attempts to deliberately look at a defender's cards, polite
> > defenders let him.
>
> At championship events?
>
Rik
Craig Barkhouse
<gerb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119874664.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Plan A: Cash the Ace
> Plan B: Run the Jack
>
> QTy x B (2)
> Qx Ty AB (3)
> Qy Tx AB (4)
(The numbering is mine.)
Hang on. Declarer is not playing double-dummy (*), so Plan B cannot
possibly win in all four of these cases if the jack is covered by the queen.
Presumably, by running the jack in the first place, declarer has decided to
play for length (3 or more) onside, and will hook again to cater to layouts
1 and 2. I really double he's going to change his mind and pick up layouts
3 and 4 as well! (I know that there are psychological aspects. "He would
never cover with QTx..." But then, knowing that aspect, he just might...
Psychology and counterpsychology ad infinitum.) Bottom line is, declarer
has to take *some* line of play, and that line will not pick up pick up all
of the above layouts.
(*) Unless cheating is involved. ;)
> Qxy T B
And here, if you are indeed allowing declarer to change his plan in
mid-stream, you have to give this layout to Plan A as well. Never mind that
you already gave xy QT to Plan A. ;) But for the reasoning stated above --
declarer is not playing double-dummy -- you are right not to give this to
Plan A. Ballpark mental calculations say that Qxy T is 50% / 2 / 4 = 6.25%
while xy QT is 40% / 6 = 6.67%. Pretty much a tossup, with the edge going
to the latter.
David Stevenson
My experience of championship events is they tend to be as polite as
non-champinship events.
raija d
I believe Bocchi is one the greatest players of current time. If his
judgment iwas that something is "stupido", I would not off-hand go saying he
is wrong. Maybe the "stupido" comment was not about the line of play...?
Then again, all of what is posted here about that case is hearsay, as far as
I have noticed. I would be interested in reading about what actually
happened, from an "official" source if there is one.
Lorne
> a look.
>
> Plan A: Cash the Ace
> Plan B: Run the Jack
>
> All the possible positions:
>
> QTxy - B (A does not win because the 10 is also missing)
> QTx y B
> QTy x B
> Qxy T B
> Txy Q A
> QT xy AB
> Qx Ty AB
NO - plan B loses because you assume above the finesse to pick up
Q10x/Q10y/Q10xy
> Qy Tx AB
NO - plan B loses because you assume above the finesse to pick up
Q10x/Q10y/Q10xy
> Tx Qy A
> Ty Qx A
> xy QT A
> Q Txy A (B does not win because the 10 is also missing)
> T Qxy
> x QTx
> y QTy
> - QTxy
>
> Play A gets 8 of 16 positions (about 52%), play B gets 7 of 16
> positions (about 44%)
B = 5 out of 16 = 31%
> If he's playing for a swing or he has some hints from the lead that LHO
> has trump length or anything like this it is hardly "stupido".
But the odds are irrelevant if the reported facts are correct - it is the
statement that dummy was making gestures with his fingers on his arm that is
important. If that is proven then no defence is possible in my view.
However on BridgeBase it is said that it was the opponents who reported the
finger movements and that Jens Auken was stating the evidence and not
stating what any director/committee member had seen.
Without the finger allegations taking a 31% line instead of 52% to create a
swing is not unreasonable, but only if you can show you are reasonably sure
of the need for a swing.
barry...@mindspring.com
deliberations of the chairman of appeals.
All the relevant factrs as stated here are broadly correct.
Bear in mind that the event was played with screens, and the man with
Q10x of trumps was the other side of the screen. one tends not to
bother too much to hide cards from the dumy your side of the screen, in
my opinion.
indeed putting dummy down befor the openoing lead or actually showing
your hand to dummy (which declarer cant see since it is outside his
range of vision) is not uncommon -- eg when he is about to discover
trups are 6-0 one way or the other) or that the Kj doubleton is onside
under the AQ when they need to find a card in a slam for example --
happens in my experience one time in 20 against players you trust.
Perhaps I'm too trusting (or have an honest face)
Barry Rigal
Gordon Rainsford
> If dummy attempts to deliberately look at a defender's cards, polite
> defenders let him.
I don't see why you would consider such behaviour polite. Do you also
point out that dummy is thereby going to forfeit their rights, or are
you going to ignore that too?
I think it's impolite of dummy to attempt to look, and asking for
trouble for a defender to go along with it.
--
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
Ron Johnson
(Quoting Bareket -- East)
Having spread the dummy Lanzarotti tilted
to have a peak into my hand. Though I never
intended to show him my cards I didn't make
any attempt to hide them. What struck me,
however, was that Lanzarotti, having seen
my cards touched his left forearm with three
middle fingers of his right hand. It was
a very unnatural gesture. Buratti
called for the DJ to which I played
low in my normal tempo. Buratti went
into a short tank, played small from
his hand, and claimed.
(End quote)
After this incident Bareket excused himself from the
table and talked to one of the floor
directors telling him the whole story.
This started an avalanche. The TD
informed the CTD who waited until
the end of the match and lodged
an official announcemet to the AC
(TDs are not allowed to make decisions
in cases like that). After hearings
lasting more than an hour the AC members
spent additional two hours discussing
the matter between them and
then came up with the following rulling:
a) the Lavazza team is expelled from
futher Team Competition during these
Championship;
b) Buratti – Lanzarotti are disqualified
from team competition (further sanctions
can only be taken by EBL Credential Committee)
c) adjust the final score of the match
to 18 : 0 VP for Israel.
Slawomir Latala
==+
I am not sure what b) means - this
statement is as unclear in Polish
as in my translation.
--
RNJ
David Stevenson
I agree it is impolite of dummy to attempt to look, but there is no
need ot meet impoliteness with impoliteness.
Arthur Hoffman
"Rik ter Veen" <adsl664077....@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:42c00c2b$0$1378$5fc...@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl...
>
> "Arthur Hoffman" <ar...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:MMudnYiXdYD...@adelphia.com...
>>
>> "David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:nRwWGNJJZ$vCF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
>> > Georgiana Gates wrote
>> >>Onno Eskes wrote:
> *snip*
>> >>Why on earth did the opponents allow the dummy to look at their cards?
>> >
>> > Defenders often turn their cards away from declarer to make sure he
>> > cannot see them, while not worrying too much if dummy does. That's
>> > common, and attributable ot human nature.
>> >
>> > If dummy attempts to deliberately look at a defender's cards, polite
>> > defenders let him.
>>
>> At championship events?
>>
> Are you suggesting that champions would not be polite?
Not at all. Most that I've met are very polite.
On the other hand, I wouldn't expect competitors in championship events "to
deliberately look at a defender's cards", thus giving up dummy's rights.
Moreover, if a dummy (pun intended) tried to look at my cards, I wouldn't
make it easy for him to see them. And I don't think that my behavior would
be considered impolite.
Bertel Lund Hansen
>>I think it's impolite of dummy to attempt to look, and asking for
>>trouble for a defender to go along with it.
> I agree it is impolite of dummy to attempt to look, but there is no
> need ot meet impoliteness with impoliteness.
Quite. A simple call for TD will do.
It's a bit funny that no dummy in my otherwise quite law ignorant
clubs attempts to see the defenders' cards.
--
Bertel, Denmark
axm...@hotmail.com
Ron Johnson wrote:
> In article <1119868796.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Onno Eskes <esk...@levendaal.nl> wrote:
> >Lavazza played team Barel, both struggling for qualification.
> >Buratti-Lanzarotti bid to a vulnerable 6D, missing one ace, with a
> >trump suit of AK9x opposite J8xxx. Buratti ran dJ... which happened to
> >be winning since his LHO had Q10x. All other declarers in 6D went down.
> >Team Barel called the director.
> From BLML (translation from Polish by Konrad Ciborowski)
>
> (Quoting Bareket -- East)
-s-
> Slawomir Latala
>
> ==+
> RNJ
Herman de Wael has notified blml that the official report has been
turned in so it should be published in tomorrow's bulletin. He
suggested to wait for the the details that it contains. I would
concur. The Polish report lacks very important details such as the
time line and the precise mannerisms involved.
regards
axman
Chris Ryall
> My experience of championship events is they tend to be as polite as
>non-champinship events.
My experience of the Europeans is that they were the most polite bridge
I've played.
raija d
"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nRwWGNJJZ$vCF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
>>Onno Eskes wrote:
>>> Lavazza played team Barel, both struggling for qualification.
>>> Buratti-Lanzarotti bid to a vulnerable 6D, missing one ace, with a
>>> trump suit of AK9x opposite J8xxx. Buratti ran dJ... which happened to
>>> be winning since his LHO had Q10x. All other declarers in 6D went down.
>>> Team Barel called the director.
>>> A special committee was formed to look into the case, and they decided
>>> to barr Buratti-Lanzarotti from the teams event and adjust the match
>>> score from 25-2 to 0-18. Jens Auken, who was a member of the committee,
>>> appears to have said afterwards that Lanzarotti (dummy) had looked in
>>> his opponents cards and then tapped a few times with three fingers on
>>> his arm.
>>> The Italians defended by saying they needed a big match score to
>>> qualify, and therefore took a swingy play. However, Norberto Bocchi
>>> called the action "Stupido" and suspected that Buratti must have heard
>>> something in the noisy playing area on this trump position.
>>> www.imp-bridge.nl (in Dutch)
>>>
>>Why on earth did the opponents allow the dummy to look at their cards?
>
> Defenders often turn their cards away from declarer to make sure he
> cannot see them, while not worrying too much if dummy does. That's
> common, and attributable ot human nature.
>
> If dummy attempts to deliberately look at a defender's cards, polite
> defenders let him.
Why would it be impolite to not show one's cards? Or did I read something
into your response that was not there; my impression from your response is
that showing cards when asked is polite, ergo: not showing them would be
impolite, yes? But why? Why is this a matter of manners in the first place?
Perhaps you were joking and I missed the joke.
Georgiana Gates
time a dummy made an obvious attempt to look at my hand.
Denis O'Kane
<barry...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1119887427.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just wondering how an incident like this might occur when screens are used?
weren't they supposed to stop anything like this happening - even going as
far as extending to floor level to prevent foot signals?
Denis O'Kane
Bolton, UK
pumpk...@hotmail.com
It seems the fatigued declarer may have rested his head on the table.
Cheers.
Nick
Steve E
Dummy may not, on his own initiative, look at the face of a card in
either defender's hand.
John Crinnion
Gordon Rainsford wrote:
> David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > If dummy attempts to deliberately look at a defender's cards, polite
> > defenders let him.
>
> I don't see why you would consider such behaviour polite. Do you also
> point out that dummy is thereby going to forfeit their rights,
Dummy should of course *know* he is thereby going to forfeit his
rights.
> or are
> you going to ignore that too?
>
> I think it's impolite of dummy to attempt to look, and asking for
> trouble for a defender to go along with it.
Well, quite: this is only what we were taught as beginners. Why is
this point being argued at expert level? Chess players age six and
upwards have no problem with the "j'adoube" rule; there is no essential
difference.
Justin Lall
this forum.
--
Justin Lall
http://squeezingthedummy.blogspot.com
Bruce McIntyre
> <henry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1119835241.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>rumors of a controversy involving the italians berotti and lanzarotty
>>at the european open team bridge championships were mentioned on bbo
>>this evening.
>>
>>can anyone report the details of the controversy and allegation?
>>apparently the score was adjusted from 25-0 in favor of the italians to
>>0-18 in favor of their opponents.
>
>
> matter some forty years hence.
>
>
Which one is writing the definitive book on cheating for the Italian market? :)
--
.-----------------------.----------------------------------.
| Bruce McIntyre | email: oo...@shaw.ca |
| 6636 Dow Ave., #203 | "OO-ga-shaw-ca, OO-ga-shaw-ca" |
| Burnaby BC CANADA | Editor, the Matchpointer |
| V5H 3C9 604/438-9735 |(ACBL Unit 430 Bridge Publication)|
}-----------------------ˆ----------------------------------{
| Yamaha WX5 wind-synthesizer virtuoso-in-training |
}----------------------------------------------------------{
| http://www.unit430.com/IMPhome.htm |
| (Unit 430 IMP League Web Site) |
}----------------------------------------------------------{
| www.unit430.com www.matchpointer.com |
| (Projects I'll be working on in 2005) |
`----------------------------------------------------------´
Arthur Hoffman
http://www.eurobridge.org/bulletin/05_1_Tenerife/pdf/Bul_11.pdf.
<henry...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119835241.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> rumors of a controversy involving the italians berotti and lanzarotty
> at the european open team bridge championships were mentioned on bbo
> this evening.
>
> can anyone report the details of the controversy and allegation?
> apparently the score was adjusted from 25-0 in favor of the italians to
> 0-18 in favor of their opponents.
>
> thanks,
>
> henrysun909
>
Gordon Rainsford
> Gordon Rainsford wrote
> >David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> If dummy attempts to deliberately look at a defender's cards, polite
> >> defenders let him.
> >
> >I don't see why you would consider such behaviour polite. Do you also
> >point out that dummy is thereby going to forfeit their rights, or are
> >you going to ignore that too?
> >
> >I think it's impolite of dummy to attempt to look, and asking for
> >trouble for a defender to go along with it.
>
> I agree it is impolite of dummy to attempt to look, but there is no
> need ot meet impoliteness with impoliteness.
It's hard to see how refusing to collude with dummy's impropriety could
be construed as rudeness.
Frans Buijsen
> Funny that this happened while this was a big reese/shapiro post on
> this forum.
There's always a big Reese-Shapiro thread on this forum.
--
Frans Buijsen (Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
.. Mail to the address above is not read. Try this address instead: ..
.. fab dot usenet at unetmail.nl ..
Todd A. Anderson
> The bulletin with the story is posted at
> http://www.eurobridge.org/bulletin/05_1_Tenerife/pdf/Bul_11.pdf.
I guess those looking for lots more details are going to be disappointed.
Even if Reese/Shapiro were innocent, one would hope that anybody smart
enough to
play bridge at this level would be smart enough to know not to attempt to
cheat with
simplistic finger signals directly mapping to suit length. Of course,
everybody knows
this, so if you were cheating, your first argument that you weren't cheating
should be
"why would I be so stupid as to cheat so obviously?" If I weren't cheating,
I would
make the same argument so it is really moot. It does stretch the limits of
the imagination
to believe you couldn't come up with some more clever and less obvious way
of
signalling you've observed defender's diamond length. So, for me, the
burden of proof
is pretty high but I imagine it was with the committee as well. I guess it
basically comes
down to an allegation + a winning play without a compelling argument was
considered
proof of offense.
henry...@yahoo.com
to me, the most disturbing point of the bulletin's story is that
multiple reports of tapping with one's hand on one's arm are mentioned.
henrysun909
David Stevenson
I do not consider it common, but I feel a dummy looks into my or
partner's hand about once every thirty sessions.
David Stevenson
Why did they not ask dummy what he did?
David Stevenson
I was just going by personal experience. It is very rare for a dummy
to look, but I cannot imagine not letting him. Why?
Bruce McIntyre
> The bulletin with the story is posted at
> http://www.eurobridge.org/bulletin/05_1_Tenerife/pdf/Bul_11.pdf.
The poker people have tiny little cameras in the tables so that we at home can
see the hole cards. Maybe the major championships should get some of these
cameras and let the players know that they are being watched. Screens obviously
are insufficient when declarer can lie down on the table and look through the
screen for the appropriate finger signal from partner.
What if it were a 50-50 proposition or better? Would the AC be concluding that
no cheating had taken place? It seems the best evidence here is the indirect
evidence that declarer has taken an anti-percentage play. The other indirect
evidence, the finger tapping and the declarer nap, are not verified by anyone
other than the opponents. Possibly the best evidence here is the silly (I'm
being charitable here) alibis given by declarer (South) and dummy (North):
-- North explained that all through the day, when dummy, he had laid both arms
on the table and rested his head on them.
-- (South) "Diamonds are always badly divided in this tournament."
-- North told the Committee he had only 20% vision in his left eye, and the red
honours were all the same to him from that side.
...and yet...
-- When confronted with East's statement, North denied that he had looked at
East's cards.
...leading one to naturally wonder why the previous statement was even made!
And then we have the obligatory shocked team official:
-- The Coach of North/South, in name of their Captain (who was absent),
explained that he ... had never heard allegations of this kind in 30 years' work
for the federation and this particular team.
It all seems like 1965 all over again, doesn't it? Where have we come in the
meantime? One side accuses, the other side denies: the Committee decides based
on who they believe and whether they would lead the JD. Nobody seems to care
about whether the gestures were actually made, because even with screens and
bid-boxes that is still completely unprovable.
As long as the playing conditions are as they are, some cheating, and some
allegations of cheating, will continue. We'll never have a provable case no
matter how much indirect evidence we collect. Wouldn't it be better if we had
some video to look at, or at least a kibitzer or two to ask? No other sport
allows its major championships to be played incognito, with the officials on call.
henry...@yahoo.com
through the day, when dummy, he had laid both arms of the table and
rested his head on them.... North told the Committee he had only 20%
vision in his left eye, and the red honors were all the same to him
from that side.... When confronted with East's statement, North denied
that he had looked at East's cards.")
That is of course not all of what he might have addressed. Perhaps the
committee felt that any statement would be self-serving and hence
unreliable?
Bruce McIntyre
> raija d wrote
>
>>
>>
>> Why would it be impolite to not show one's cards? Or did I read something
>> into your response that was not there; my impression from your
>> response is
>> that showing cards when asked is polite, ergo: not showing them would be
>> impolite, yes? But why? Why is this a matter of manners in the first
>> place?
>> Perhaps you were joking and I missed the joke.
>
>
> I was just going by personal experience. It is very rare for a dummy
> to look, but I cannot imagine not letting him. Why?
>
Body language. Don't tell me you've never watched your partner play a hand
online and rooted aloud for him to make the correct finesse or drop decision.
In face-to-face play it is quite different. If you're declarer with an
difficult choice and you see that partner, who has seen one or both defensive
hands, is watching intently or has tensed up, or is closing his eyes obviously
hoping for the right call from you, it might be a factor, and it shouldn't be.
In a casual game, I agree with you: let dummy look, walk around the table,
whatever. But not in the European Championships. In fact, just the gesture of
trying to look is potentially revealing, since a defender with the queen of
trumps may be reluctant to show his hand, where a defender with small trumps
wouldn't be.
I tell a dummy trying to see my cards that I will show them to him one at a time
over the course of the next minute or two. :)
Bruce McIntyre
> wrote
>
>> thank you for the link.
>>
>> to me, the most disturbing point of the bulletin's story is that
>> multiple reports of tapping with one's hand on one's arm are mentioned.
>>
>> henrysun909
>>
>> Arthur Hoffman wrote:
>>
>>> The bulletin with the story is posted at
>>> http://www.eurobridge.org/bulletin/05_1_Tenerife/pdf/Bul_11.pdf.
>
>
> Why did they not ask dummy what he did?
>
(North, Lanzarotti, was dummy.)
"North explained that all through the day, when dummy, he had laid both arms on
the table and rested his head on them." I assume this explanation followed some
sort of question about the position of his arms. My next question would be
"from this position, how on earth did you manage to play the cards from dummy
when called by declarer? Telekinesis?" :)
On the question of looking at his screenmate's hand, we have this: "When
confronted with East's statement, North denied that he had looked at East's
cards." However, Lanzarotti also felt the need to add that "he had only 20%
vision in his left eye, and the red honours were all the same to him from that
side." Maybe he only leaned over far enough to look with his left eye, but
wait: We had the AH lead and a discouraging 8H (I assume it was discouraging as
West asked several questions before switching at trick two) from East. Assuming
from this declarer has the KQ, from North's point of view, what other
outstanding red honour is there?
Don't get me wrong--I would much prefer having a neutral kibitzer's testimony or
a videotape as evidence than the statements from both sides and one
antipercentage play, even in this case when the accused's alibis are not quite
up to the standard of "America's Dumbest Criminals."
richard...@gmail.com
Players will continue to travel to major events. However, the
competition will be held using an electronic playing environment such
as Bridge Base Online. Physically segregate all players such at all
Norths are in one room, all South's another... Throw a packet sniffer
on the LAN to watch for unauthorized traffic. Have physical proctors
circulate through the room.
1. This type of set up would result in an enormous improvement in
physical security. Right now, I'm less worried about whether L-B
cheated than the impact that the accusation will have on the game. I
think its well worth investing some dollars to avoid repeating this
type of incident.
2. Such a system would allow unparalleled VuGraph and record keeping
3. This system would yield a number of direct benefits including
eliminating the the potential for fouled boards and leads out of turn.
Director's would have much better tools to evaluate tempo violations.
I've heard a number of criticisms of such a proposal. In general,
these fall into one of two camps. The first is related to "table
feel". Many pro's complain that they would lose their edge if they
were forced to play on a laptop rather than using a deck of cards.
Potentially, this latest incident will lead some players to re-consider
the validity of arguments based on preserving this type of edge.
The second argument is related to the cost implementation. It should
be possible to implement this type of system for a very reasonable sum.
The cost of computers can be passed onto the players. Given the
amount that the clients and pros are spending on these events, its hard
to argue that a $500 laptop would blow anyones budget. The cost of
implementing a LAN and a server is peanuts compared to the total budget
for such an event.
Dwayne Hoffman
The case writeup admittedly isn't filled with the "sensationalism" that
some may expect. However the writeup was competent, direct, and simple.
What I find as damning for B-L is the following statement:
"Diamonds are always badly divided in this tournament".
I could understand the preceding statements about the A of hearts being
strange, all the questions alerting him to a possible foul trump
location, and such. This quote tho, is such an admission of guilt I can
not begin to stomach it.
I seriously believe these two got caught. This is rather clearcut, and I
applaud the EBL for being very firm. Well done Jens Auken and crowd.
Gordon Rainsford
> It is very rare for a dummy
> to look, but I cannot imagine not letting him. Why?
Because there's a Law prohibiting it.
pumpk...@hotmail.com
Bruce McIntyre wrote:
(snip)
> And then we have the obligatory shocked team official:
>
> -- The Coach of North/South, in name of their Captain (who was absent),
> explained that he ... had never heard allegations of this kind in 30 years' work
> for the federation and this particular team.
>
> It all seems like 1965 all over again, doesn't it? Where have we come in the
> meantime? One side accuses, the other side denies: the Committee decides based
> on who they believe and whether they would lead the JD. Nobody seems to care
> about whether the gestures were actually made, because even with screens and
> bid-boxes that is still completely unprovable.
It seems the near-obligatory threats of litigation are also
circulating. Not that that means anything-both Katz-Cohen and
Cokin-Sion rushed to the Courthouse to file suit.
Cheers.
Nick
David Stevenson
>David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It is very rare for a dummy
>> to look, but I cannot imagine not letting him. Why?
>
>Because there's a Law prohibiting it.
So what? When I'm dummy I am not directing. And it is the TD's job,
not the players to apply the Law. *I* would never look into a
defender's hand, but I do not feel it is up to me to control opponents
who break Laws until such time as it matters - and then I do not control
them, just call the TD.
David Stevenson
As we have pointed out many times, self-serving statements are
admissible: it is only their weight that is in question. You do not
fail to ask a question because the answer is self-serving, otherwise ACs
would not last very long.
Top posting does make the ensuing dialogue a mess.
Travis Crump
> David Stevenson skrev:
>
>
>>>I think it's impolite of dummy to attempt to look, and asking for
>>>trouble for a defender to go along with it.
>
>
>> I agree it is impolite of dummy to attempt to look, but there is no
>>need ot meet impoliteness with impoliteness.
>
>
> Quite. A simple call for TD will do.
>
> It's a bit funny that no dummy in my otherwise quite law ignorant
> clubs attempts to see the defenders' cards.
>
Against some people at club it takes conscious effort not to look at
their cards...
henry...@yahoo.com
never, to my knowledge, an evidentiary hearing on the katz-cohen case,
and (2) the cokin-sion case was heard in an evidentiary hearing prior
to the decision to boot them out of the acbl.
in this case, since only one hand was adduced and since both sides were
given the chance to say their piece, it is unreasonable (to say the
least) for L-B to complain about due process not being served. whether
they can make the case that the disciplinary committee made a mistake
is a quite different question.
henrysun909
Peter Clinch
Dwayne Hoffman wrote:
>
> The case writeup admittedly isn't filled with the "sensationalism" that
> some may expect. However the writeup was competent, direct, and simple.
> What I find as damning for B-L is the following statement:
>
> "Diamonds are always badly divided in this tournament".
>
That can hardly have been meant as anything but a joke, perhaps an
ill-timed one. But of course a hanging committee will include it in the
write-up. It's not only players that make self-serving comments.
This is not to say I believe B-L to be innocent, just that I think
quoting that in the write-up as evidence is not credible.
Peter.
New York, NY.
lucas karpiuk
not familiar with this rule; or, if i am, not by this name.
enlighten?
Ashok
http://chess.about.com/cs/reference/g/bldefjad.htm
Ashok
Mike Preston
<drt...@aaahawk.com.N0SPAM> wrote:
>"Arthur Hoffman" <ar...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>news:j9adnYnixMN...@adelphia.com...
>> The bulletin with the story is posted at
>> http://www.eurobridge.org/bulletin/05_1_Tenerife/pdf/Bul_11.pdf.
>
> I guess it basically comes down to an allegation + a winning play without a
> compelling argument was considered proof of offense.
That, and the not insignificant additional damning evidence:
ridiculous attempts at justification. Diamonds are always breaking
badly at this tournament? That one was truly pathetic.
mike
Peter Clinch
Todd A. Anderson wrote:
> "Arthur Hoffman" <ar...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:j9adnYnixMN...@adelphia.com...
> > The bulletin with the story is posted at
> > http://www.eurobridge.org/bulletin/05_1_Tenerife/pdf/Bul_11.pdf.
>
> I guess those looking for lots more details are going to be disappointed.
>
Well, I don't agree with that. The write-up mentions at least one thing
which is never picked up again. Opening lead is the ace of hearts,
followed by a grilling of declarer as to whether he has shown the king
of hearts in the bidding. Doesn't that look like a man searching for
his second trick? If he had held the diamond queen, would he have
questioned so hard? There is a lot of extraneous garbage in the
write-up: "East complained that he had been so shaken about the whole
thing, that he could no longer play to his full capacity". Give me a
break! What is this, a ruling or a soap opera? The more I read this
write up, the more it seems to be preparing a defence for the
committee's ruling. And let's be clear; some of the committee members
are lifelong bridge politicians. They will have recognized the need to
make their case seem watertight.
Peter.
New York, NY.
lucas karpiuk
pumpk...@hotmail.com
John Crinnion wrote:
(snip)
Why is
> this point being argued at expert level? Chess players age six and
> upwards have no problem with the "j'adoube" rule; there is no essential
> difference.
This point is being argued at the expert level for the same reason that
chess players' ethical lapses re the "j'adoube" rule were debated at
the expert level.
Perhaps the best known offender was Yugoslav Grand Master Milan
Matulovic who so frequently invoked the "j'adoube" rule in order to
"undo" his blunders that he was given the quite unflattering nickname
"J'adoubovic".
Cheers.
Nick
Barry Margolin
Travis Crump <pret...@techhouse.org> wrote:
> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> > David Stevenson skrev:
> >
> >
> >>>I think it's impolite of dummy to attempt to look, and asking for
> >>>trouble for a defender to go along with it.
> >
> >
> >> I agree it is impolite of dummy to attempt to look, but there is no
> >>need ot meet impoliteness with impoliteness.
> >
> >
> > Quite. A simple call for TD will do.
> >
> > It's a bit funny that no dummy in my otherwise quite law ignorant
> > clubs attempts to see the defenders' cards.
I personally have never seen this outside of friendly rubber bridge
games. And the guy I primarily remember doing this has been suspended
from the ACBL twice.
> Against some people at club it takes conscious effort not to look at
> their cards...
Actively ethical players turn their head away and warn the opponent that
they're showing their hand. In some cases, two warnings seem to be
necessary.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
raija d
Perhaps you can answer why it would be impolite. Or why it would be polite.
I cannot imagine letting him as he has no need for the information and it
cannot possibly be of use for him. IMO it is a personal preference to show
or not show one's cards to dummy when he asks. If there is a a law that says
dummy may not attempt to see a defender's hand then condoning it, I suppose,
would be fine but certainly not a requirement for passing oneelf as a
"polite player"
.
Bruce McIntyre
Give you a break?
Dummy, without asking, looks into your hand, and then _three times_ gives an
obvious signal as to your trump length to declarer, who just happens at this
moment to have his head lying low on the table on his arms, deep in thought but
also making dummy's signal easy to see through the screen partition. Now
declarer makes an antipercentage play through your QTx of trumps and scores up
his vulnerable slam. You walk away and make your case to a TD. You have
several more boards to play against this pair, and you don't know what's going
to happen. Perhaps you will be vilified in tomorrow's Daily Bulletin, or maybe
(probably) in rgb, for making such an outrageous accusation. Perhaps you are
right and who knows what curveballs will be thrown in the ensuing boards.
If you can play to your full capacity under these circumstances you don't need a
break.
I suppose if West had held QTx of trumps you would give West a procedural
penalty for asking misleading questions when he had the slam beaten. After all,
it's not proper to ask questions that might let you figure out how to get it
down two.
Ah, but we shouldn't believe the AC because some of them, who you left unnamed,
are "lifelong bridge politicians." There was no finger signal. No dummy looked
into his screenmate's hand; anyway, he's mostly blind in that eye. And diamonds
really have been breaking badly in this tournament; it was probably those darned
lifelong bridge politicians that made the hand records!
Give me a break? That's probably what the AC said once the hearing was over.
Chris Ryall
>Funny that this happened while this was a big reese/shapiro post on
>this forum.
Piffle! We do that every summer.
--
How is it that 4% of World humans can produce 25% of the worlds CO2?
Chris Ryall Wirral UK <cjr...@my.domain>
Barry Margolin
"raija d" <must...@charter.net> wrote:
Law 43.A.2(c) says "Dummy may not, on his own initiative, look at the
face of a card in either defender's hand." The penalty imposed for
violating this is that dummy loses some of his other rights, such as
warning declarer that he's about to lead from the wrong hand.
The logic behind this, it seems to me, is that after seeing a defender's
hand, he might be more selective about when he warns declarer about
errors like this.
The Law specifically says "of his own initiative". I don't think
there's a Law covering a defender *offering* his hand to dummy. I'm not
sure how dummy requesting to see a defender's hand, and the defender
voluntarily shows it, would be treated under this -- the request is "of
his own initiative", but actually seeing it is initiated by the defender.
I can easily imagine that the Lawmakers considered this such a bizarre
occurrence that they it didn't need to be discussed.
this...@yahoo.com
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Opening lead is the ace of hearts,
> followed by a grilling of declarer as to whether he has shown the king
> of hearts in the bidding. Doesn't that look like a man searching for
> his second trick? If he had held the diamond queen, would he have
> questioned so hard?
If he had queen doubleton, he would have been searching for his second
trick.
Frisco Del Rosario
<lu...@speedofwood.com> wrote:
> i am a chess player (admittedly a poor one) above the age of six who is
> not familiar with this rule; or, if i am, not by this name.
The "touch move" rule says if you touch a piece, you must move it if you
can; if you touch an opponent's piece, you must capture it if you can.
However, when a player wants to center a piece on its square and not be
forced to move or capture it, he must announce j'adoube -- French for "I
adjust", and the English word "adjust" is more commonly used -- while
doing so.
Some chessplayers get into the habit of announcing "j'adoube" when they
pass the salt or change the radio station.
--
Frisco Del Rosario
A First Book of Morphy -- http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1412039061
Chris Ryall
>
>This point is being argued at the expert level for the same reason that
>chess players' ethical lapses re the "j'adoube" rule were debated at
>the expert level.
Sorry, my chess French only goes to 'en passant' and my 3" le Robert
Collins doesn't know this verb. "Adjust"? Please enlighten
Bertel Lund Hansen
> That can hardly have been meant as anything but a joke
You were present when the remark was made?
> This is not to say I believe B-L to be innocent, just that I think
> quoting that in the write-up as evidence is not credible.
Leaving out certain given arguments would indeed be.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
>> This is not to say I believe B-L to be innocent, just that I think
>> quoting that in the write-up as evidence is not credible.
> Leaving out certain given arguments would indeed be.
"not credible" that is.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Gordon Rainsford
> Gordon Rainsford wrote
> >David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> It is very rare for a dummy
> >> to look, but I cannot imagine not letting him. Why?
> >
> >Because there's a Law prohibiting it.
>
> So what? When I'm dummy I am not directing. And it is the TD's job,
> not the players to apply the Law. *I* would never look into a
> defender's hand, but I do not feel it is up to me to control opponents
> who break Laws until such time as it matters - and then I do not control
> them, just call the TD.
You are not just declining to control them - you are actively colluding
with their law-breaking when you let them see your hand.
Bob Lipton
> pumpk...@hotmail.com wrote on "controversy at ebu championship"
>
>>
>> This point is being argued at the expert level for the same reason
>> that chess players' ethical lapses re the "j'adoube" rule were debated
>> at the expert level.
>
>
> Sorry, my chess French only goes to 'en passant' and my 3" le Robert
> Collins doesn't know this verb. "Adjust"? Please enlighten
When you want to fiddle with the piece so they're neatly on their
squares, you announce "j'adoube"
Bob
Peter Clinch
Bruce McIntyre wrote:
>
> Give you a break?
>
> Dummy, without asking, looks into your hand, and then _three times_ gives an
> obvious signal as to your trump length to declarer, who just happens at this
> moment to have his head lying low on the table on his arms, deep in thought but
> also making dummy's signal easy to see through the screen partition. Now
> declarer makes an antipercentage play through your QTx of trumps and scores up
> his vulnerable slam. You walk away and make your case to a TD. You have
> several more boards to play against this pair, and you don't know what's going
> to happen. Perhaps you will be vilified in tomorrow's Daily Bulletin, or maybe
> (probably) in rgb, for making such an outrageous accusation. Perhaps you are
> right and who knows what curveballs will be thrown in the ensuing boards.
>
> If you can play to your full capacity under these circumstances you don't need a
> break.
>
> I suppose if West had held QTx of trumps you would give West a procedural
> penalty for asking misleading questions when he had the slam beaten. After all,
> it's not proper to ask questions that might let you figure out how to get it
> down two.
>
> Ah, but we shouldn't believe the AC because some of them, who you left unnamed,
> are "lifelong bridge politicians." There was no finger signal. No dummy looked
> into his screenmate's hand; anyway, he's mostly blind in that eye. And diamonds
> really have been breaking badly in this tournament; it was probably those darned
> lifelong bridge politicians that made the hand records!
>
> Give me a break? That's probably what the AC said once the hearing was over.
>
I don't believe I gave any opinion on whether B-L are guilty or not. My
opinion is on the way the case is written up. The emotional state of
one of the players is not at all germane to the case. It's quite
possible that the committee made the right ruling. I was surprised to
see it was constituted primarily of officials rather than the world's
finest players. That's all. Your sarcasm is completely wasted, as you
didn't read what I was saying.
Peter.
New York, NY.
Peter Clinch
Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Peter Clinch skrev:
>
> > That can hardly have been meant as anything but a joke
>
> You were present when the remark was made?
>
Let me put it this way. If it was meant seriously, then add my name to
the list of outraged posters here who latched onto that remark. But can
everyone actually believe that this was a lynchpin of the defence?
These people are not complete idiots, and they would know that such a
remark would bear no weight. No, I wasn't there - of course - but it
seems highly unlikely to me that this was presented in seriousness -
yet it is the number one reason given for passing sentence.
Peter.
New York, NY.
Otis Bricker
98B800.021...@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
> The Law specifically says "of his own initiative". I don't think
> there's a Law covering a defender *offering* his hand to dummy. I'm not
> sure how dummy requesting to see a defender's hand, and the defender
> voluntarily shows it, would be treated under this -- the request is "of
> his own initiative", but actually seeing it is initiated by the defender.
>
It would seem to me that once dummy signals a desire to see the hand, what
follows is the result "of his own initiatize." The defender was responding
to something initiated by dummy.
The one questionable sequence would be if the defender asks first if dummy
would like to see and dummy says yes. I would still say it would apply
since dummy had to take an action to cause it to occur and in doing so
showed some initiatize.
This also has the added benifit of simplifying things. Anytime dummy takes
an active part in what leads to him seeing the cards, he is subject to
penalties. If he is passive, he is safe.
Otis
David Stevenson
>David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Gordon Rainsford wrote
>> >David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It is very rare for a dummy
>> >> to look, but I cannot imagine not letting him. Why?
>> >
>> >Because there's a Law prohibiting it.
>>
>> So what? When I'm dummy I am not directing. And it is the TD's job,
>> not the players to apply the Law. *I* would never look into a
>> defender's hand, but I do not feel it is up to me to control opponents
>> who break Laws until such time as it matters - and then I do not control
>> them, just call the TD.
>
>You are not just declining to control them - you are actively colluding
>with their law-breaking when you let them see your hand.
Which Law?
Peter Clinch
One further thing - I have every sympathy for the guy who became
emotionally unable to play properly; he did, after all believe that he
had just been cheated by two of the world's most successful players.
It's just that I don't understand why this needs to be recorded.
Of course it is possible that the summary is a complete record of all
that transpired in committee. In the circumstances, I hope that the
session was also electronically recorded.
Oh, and sorry about the last line of my former post - it wasn't
necessary.
Peter.
New York, NY.
Kent Feiler
Having spread the dummy Lanzarotti tilted
to have a peak into my hand. Though I never
intended to show him my cards I didn't make
any attempt to hide them. What struck me,
however, was that Lanzarotti, having seen
my cards touched his left forearm with three
middle fingers of his right hand. It was
a very unnatural gesture. Buratti
called for the DJ to which I played
low in my normal tempo. Buratti went
into a short tank, played small from
his hand, and claimed.
--------------------------------------------------------
The thing that bothers me about this is the same one that bothered me
about Reese-Shapiro, is this really the best cheating system you can
create? Here's a alternative system, look in LHO's hand, then take a
revolver out of your pocket and fire three shots into the ceiling.
That replaces the old system of waving a flag with the number 3 on it
over the top of the screens.
People who'd use cheating systems like that have to be either stupid
(which they're not) or incredibly arrogant (which they might be).
Still, when you're in a situation where everyone you play is alert to
the possibility of cheating and some are certifyably paranoid about
it, how can you think this won't be caught?
Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com
Gordon Rainsford
> Gordon Rainsford wrote
> >David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Gordon Rainsford wrote
> >> >David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It is very rare for a dummy
> >> >> to look, but I cannot imagine not letting him. Why?
> >> >
> >> >Because there's a Law prohibiting it.
> >>
> >> So what? When I'm dummy I am not directing. And it is the TD's job,
> >> not the players to apply the Law. *I* would never look into a
> >> defender's hand, but I do not feel it is up to me to control opponents
> >> who break Laws until such time as it matters - and then I do not control
> >> them, just call the TD.
> >
> >You are not just declining to control them - you are actively colluding
> >with their law-breaking when you let them see your hand.
>
> Which Law?
L41A2(c).
And please read what I said if you're tempted to tell me it places no
restriction on the defenders: I know that, and haven't said otherwise.
Henk Uijterwaal
>> defenders let him.
>
I've seen this zillions of times at high level matches. Dummy gets up
to get a coffee or so, takes a peek at one of the hands to see how
complex the hand is and thus how soon he has to be back.
Henk
Gordon Rainsford
So, declarer sits and thinks for three minutes, and if dummy is back by
then, it's a straightforward hand to play :)
Georgiana Gates
>
> The thing that bothers me about this is the same one that bothered me
> about Reese-Shapiro, is this really the best cheating system you can
> create? Here's a alternative system, look in LHO's hand, then take a
> revolver out of your pocket and fire three shots into the ceiling.
> That replaces the old system of waving a flag with the number 3 on it
> over the top of the screens.
>
> People who'd use cheating systems like that have to be either stupid
> (which they're not) or incredibly arrogant (which they might be).
> Still, when you're in a situation where everyone you play is alert to
> the possibility of cheating and some are certifyably paranoid about
> it, how can you think this won't be caught?
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Kent Feiler
> www.KentFeiler.com
I agree. It seems so blatant. Couldn't you do something with wireless
transmission?
OTOH, it's very wrong for top players to give the appearance of
impropriety. If Lanzarotti hadn't looked at LHO's hand, he would have
been in the clear.
Bertel Lund Hansen
>> The Law specifically says "of his own initiative". I don't think
>> there's a Law covering a defender *offering* his hand to dummy. I'm not
>> sure how dummy requesting to see a defender's hand, and the defender
>> voluntarily shows it, would be treated under this -- the request is "of
>> his own initiative", but actually seeing it is initiated by the defender.
> It would seem to me that once dummy signals a desire to see the hand, what
> follows is the result "of his own initiatize." The defender was responding
> to something initiated by dummy.
I agree.
> The one questionable sequence would be if the defender asks first if dummy
> would like to see and dummy says yes. I would still say it would apply
> since dummy had to take an action to cause it to occur and in doing so
> showed some initiatize.
I don't agree.
> This also has the added benifit of simplifying things. Anytime dummy takes
> an active part in what leads to him seeing the cards, he is subject to
> penalties.
So his turning his eyes in the direction of the cards that a
defender is holding in front of him (dummy) is also taking an
initiative? Or is there a difference between "doing something"
and "taking an initiative"? I think there is.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I don't believe I gave any opinion on whether B-L are guilty or not. My
> opinion is on the way the case is written up. The emotional state of
> one of the players is not at all germane to the case. It's quite
> possible that the committee made the right ruling. I was surprised to
> see it was constituted primarily of officials rather than the world's
> finest players.
I think that the worlds finest players are experts at playing,
and the worlds finest officials are experts at officializing.
--
Bertel, Denmark
David Stevenson
Fair enough. So there are no restrictions on defenders, so why are
you trying to place restrictions on them?
Otis Bricker
news:imr5e7r2i9n7.1v...@40tude.net:
> Otis Bricker skrev:
>
>>> The Law specifically says "of his own initiative". I don't think
>>> there's a Law covering a defender *offering* his hand to dummy. I'm
>>> not sure how dummy requesting to see a defender's hand, and the
>>> defender voluntarily shows it, would be treated under this -- the
>>> request is "of his own initiative", but actually seeing it is
>>> initiated by the defender.
>
>> It would seem to me that once dummy signals a desire to see the hand,
>> what follows is the result "of his own initiatize." The defender was
>> responding to something initiated by dummy.
>
> I agree.
>
>> The one questionable sequence would be if the defender asks first if
>> dummy would like to see and dummy says yes. I would still say it
>> would apply since dummy had to take an action to cause it to occur
>> and in doing so showed some initiatize.
>
> I don't agree.
Why not? It seems to me that if dummy wanted to maintain his rights, he
clearly had the opportunity to do so by saying no. What if the signal was
non-verbal? If the defender tilted his cards and cocked an eye
questioningly in what seems to be an offer to show, could the dummy
interpret this as an invitation and look? Or if he responded to what he
feels is a question with "May I?" while leaning over, who's initiative
was it?
>
>> This also has the added benifit of simplifying things. Anytime dummy
>> takes an active part in what leads to him seeing the cards, he is
>> subject to penalties.
>
> So his turning his eyes in the direction of the cards that a
> defender is holding in front of him (dummy) is also taking an
> initiative? Or is there a difference between "doing something"
> and "taking an initiative"? I think there is.
>
Perhaps it is not as simply as I had hoped. Maybe it should be taking an
action that could reasonably be expected to result in his seeing the
cards. When I look at my opponents, I do not expect to see their cards.
If one of them happens to point them at me I might, but I do not look at
West with the expectaion of seeing his cards.
Telling the opponents, "Yes, I would like to see them," would seem to
have a reasonable expectation of resulting it that happening. I have a
hard time imagining this sort of thing happening and maybe it should be
viewed as a form of entrapment. But simple rules are easier to enforce
and I see no hardship befalling dummy from this simple interpretation.
this...@yahoo.com
Kent Feiler wrote:
> The thing that bothers me about this is the same one that bothered me
> about Reese-Shapiro, is this really the best cheating system you can
> create? Here's a alternative system, look in LHO's hand, then take a
> revolver out of your pocket and fire three shots into the ceiling.
> That replaces the old system of waving a flag with the number 3 on it
> over the top of the screens.
>
> People who'd use cheating systems like that have to be either stupid
> (which they're not) or incredibly arrogant (which they might be).
My only guess is that this shows a lack of premeditation. Maybe they
weren't habitual cheaters and had no system in place, but they were
desperate for this hand for some reason.
raija d
"Henk Uijterwaal" <he...@ripe.net> wrote in message
news:l8q2c1p5t0euujlci...@4ax.com...
Do we not have adequate examples (last Bermuda Bowl for instance) as well as
proprieties in the laws (?) that dummy should stay seated until hand is
over. LOL
N. Silver
> ++++No idea, but doubtless N Silver
> will be laying the law down on the
> matter some forty years hence.
Hope so but would be 100 years old.
Decisive action by a committee shows guilt.
Many other lesser penalties and less extreme
remedies are possible.
Chris Ryall
>at the european open team bridge championships were mentioned on bbo
>this evening.
No less than our own dear David Burn was interviewed by UK's BBC 'pm'
flagship radio program about the scandal. He dodged the more difficult
questions skillfully. David's his rich baritone may be heard on the link
below. (May need real audio to receive)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4_aod.shtml?radio4/pm
.. fast forward to 53min+39sec for the interview
David Burn
It may be different playing with screens, which tend to create a more
informal atmosphere. Certainly, in the few high-level events I've played,
the defender on the same side of the screen as dummy will occasionally sit
so that dummy can see his cards, and will certainly not balk at a request by
dummy to have a look at them. This doesn't often happen as early as trick
one in a slam, though.
David Burn
London, England
David Burn
"Bob Lipton" <bobl...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2Nawe.28293$IX4....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
And when you want not to play a card you have just played, you announce "Au
chit". In this context, "chit" is a contraction of "chitin", a
polysaccharide that forms most of the skeleton of arthropods. The idea is
that only an insect could have played as you have just done, so you could
not possibly have meant to do so.
David Burn
London, England
Chris Ryall
>It may be different playing with screens, which tend to create a more
>informal atmosphere.
Agreed. Hi, David, enjoyed your spot on 'pm'. Nicely handled.
David Burn
<this...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1119982939.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Funy you should say that. I was asked by BBC Radio Four to be interviewed on
the topic this evening. The interviewer, who had been spectacularly well
briefed, asked me if this was a "very rudimentary way of cheating". I said
that it was unique in my experience, but that the situation was desperate
for the Lavazza team, so it could have been improvised on the spot.
While I was saying this, I wondered if it were really the case - to me, it
seemed almost incredible. And yet, a Disciplinary Committee must have found
it to be the case, and this Committee contained some of the best legal minds
in the game. To make such a ruling on the basis of a single incident is
without precedent, as far as I know; in other such cases, the alleged
perpetrators were deliberately watched over several sessions of play before
any action was brought. Compare, if you will, the case of Facchini and
Zuchelli, the infamous "foot-soldiers".
Whatever the rights and wrongs, it is a sad business. It will taint the
victories gained by the Italians in 1995 and 1997 in the European
Championships; what impact it will have on Signora Lavazza and the future of
Italian bridge is impossible to predict; but I cannot see any good in it. Of
course it will generate publicity for bridge, and maybe no publicity is bad
publicity. But...
David Burn
London, England
Jonathan Siegel
Bob Lipton wrote:
Two chess players were having a correspondence match. They hadn't fixed
a time limit for moves, but were playing at a rate of about one move per
week. But after about ten moves, one player's move didn't arrive for
two weeks . . . three weeks . . . four weeks . . . five weeks . . . .
The other player imagined that a really devastating move was in the
works. Finally, after six weeks, the move arrived. Tearing it open, he
saw that it read, "J'adoube".
pumpk...@hotmail.com
This obscure ritual was peculiar to the "fin-de-siècle" Pacific
North-West; it no longer forms part of this Continent's custom and
practice.
Cheers.
Nick
Bertel Lund Hansen
>>> The one questionable sequence would be if the defender asks first if
>>> dummy would like to see and dummy says yes. I would still say it
>>> would apply since dummy had to take an action to cause it to occur
>>> and in doing so showed some initiatize.
>> I don't agree.
> Why not?
How many initiatives is it possible to take in the same set of
actions? "First I took the initiative, then Charles took the
initiative." - I don't think that makes sense.
--
Bertel, Denmark
krallison
bars them, too, from their lucrative professional play.
Karen Allison