Somethin’ to Talk About

January 1st, 2012  ~  Cam French  ~  No Comments 

Somethin’ to Talk About

 http://youtu.be/Z04r_tlWdRs

Bobby posted this on my blog the Kobayashi Maru (02/17/2008),

Permalink: http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/2008/02/24/the-kobayashi-maru/

His comment (below) was a few months later on 08/15/2008 and I suspect it has not received the attention it deserves. I submit it all, without edit or comment. I leave that to the reader.

C

___________________________________________________________________

C

Stand Tall

October 5th, 2011  ~  Cam French  ~  13 Comments 

Burton Cummings – Stand Tall

You just won a tournament, a title, a National Championship or a Bermuda Bowl. You are basking in the glory.

To your horror you later discover you had cheating team mates at the other table. You were cheated too.

Now we will further presume you had no idea that this partnership cheated, because if you did you would never have played with them in the first place. But you did. Through their unlawful acts your entire team has been tarnished. You cheated (albeit unwillingly) and won. Period.

Would you toss your unlawfully won title back?

I asked many experts this question from Grant Baze to Paul Soloway and they all said what you would expect them to say. Grant once found and reported a scoring error that dropped him from (if I recall) winning the event to fifth or sixth place. To him, it was a no-brainer. It really isn’t that tough. Do you really wish to retain an unlawfully title?

Capp’s team and Norfolk are not the only ones impacted by this. This happens more often that you can imagine, scoring errors (not exactly cheating) but if you knew you lost 9 imps on the board and the opposition has you winning 3, you fail to explore the truth, you are cheating your opponents and the game.

In my local unit, I recall a team captain reporting a false score (the other team had an error in his favour) and he submitted a false slip, having failed to reconcile the difference. Unfortunately for him, they discovered their error, and reported it. Soon the miscreant was sitting out a 30 day suspension. This is different obviously, but why someone would do that just puzzles me. I mean do they forget this is a game based upon ethics and integrity? I guess the sad reality it yes – they choose to forget.

So, with (unknown to you) cheating team mates at the other table – you score a victory. Would you toss it back when you learn the painful truth?

I am going to step out on a limb and speculate that precious few would say no. I think I am on terra firma with that guess. Which begs the obvious question – why can’t Sternberg, Sontag and Weichsel toss theirs back? Are they just embarassed, or do they consider it a lawful victory or are they simply above the spirit and letter of the laws? I don’t pretend to know. Maybe they can weigh in and enlighten us all.

Maybe a little of of all the above.

We deserve better. The game deserves better from two of its superstars.

And if pointing the finger at those who benefit from cheaters makes me look bad, well, so be it. They should be ashamed of themselves. Stand tall or stand down. As Al Roth would say – what is the problem?

Well would you or wouldn’t you?

C

BAD COMPANY

September 24th, 2011  ~  Cam French  ~  7 Comments 

Bad Company – Bad Company

I got this note from a long-time contributor.

Thought you might smile. Some bridge players have a deliciously wicked sense of humour. You decide if this qualifies.

My friend Jerry Clerkin once made a pre-alert statement when he started a game against Cokin.  Jerry said, “We play upside down pencil signals.”

I almost feel sorry for poor Cokin;  Sion browbeats him into cheating (most of the expert community were of the opinion that Sion was a horrible influence on Cokin), they get caught, booted for 5 years, legal bills, ostracization and now has to endure the barbs of friends. Well I did say almost.

And he was the only one (apparently) that wanted to throw their unlawfully won Norfolk title back. But Sontag, Weichsel and Sternberg would not so much as entertain the thought.

“Bad Company, and I can’t deny it. Bad, bad company, ’till the day I die.”

C

Here is the funny part. Since this was posted, at last count 24 people have emailed me privately about this post. 22 said it was funny, 2 wishing they had the imagination to dream up such a barb, and 2 found the remark “offensive”. None would post, thereby going on the record. Not sure what that says but it is telling on its own. Cheating is the forbidden fruit, no one wants to talk about it. It is the bastard child of our game especially in a case like this where otherwise honest and ethical players like Sontag and Weichsel do a U-Turn on the ethics highway and someone calls them to account. But until we realize that sooner or later we will have to address cheating with all its warts, pain, implications and ramifications, it will remain a tainted topic, where few dare to venture. I encourage those who have an opinion to post for all to see.

Hard to Handle

June 30th, 2011  ~  Cam French  ~  No Comments 

The Black Crows – Hard To Handle

Bobby (and to a lesser extent his beloved) and I have enjoyed an off-and-on love hate relationship.

One minute we are loving, cuddling and like lovers.

The next they are spewing toxic hostility  (to be fair, mostly JKW) and I respond with corresponding force.

If you need specifics scroll back.

Linda Lee asked me to tone down the hostility. I never saw it as such, but I can see how questioning a person with Bobby’s record can bring one into the cross hairs.

There is no pleasure in criticizing for its own sake. And when one calls into question words of Bobby Wolff, JKW, or the actions (perhaps inactions) of Alan Sontag and Peter Weichsel – there will be return fire. Fair enough.

I got hate mail and love mail, thankfully much more of the latter. The episode with ERM swindling Stoney and gloating about it was a poster child for our rapport. Judy was incensed,  the readers laughed and Bobby played it down the middle as he had to. What many of us thought was funny, one took offence and that is OK.

And I confess I like to stir the pot. I don’t see too many others doing it. Sometimes someone needs to step out and say – this is wrong. I have no idea how I somehow fell into the role – as one of my friends called it – “you are the cheating guru.” That is not a role I seek or want. No thx.

As as for “flogging a dead horse” (JKW’s words about Norfolk) well….

 I do not apologize.

There is no statute of limitations on doing the right thing.

Zeke and company were swindled by self-confessed cheaters aided and abetted by the League. They are certainly Collateral Damage. But hey- so what if the cheaters confessed, the aggrieved filed a timely appeal, (never heard) – well too bad. That doesn’t sit well with me, but THAT IS THE WAY IT IS. it doesn’t mean I have to like or accept it, but that is the way this will apparently play out. Cheaters win.

I guess Bob Hamman was right all along – “it is a great story but if you imagine some scoring change will ensue then you are mistaken.”

Bobby had the courtesy to become engaged, sharing his perspective, insight and experience. Precious few of said rank did the same. Many commented in private, but Bobby was out there on the record. And as Martha says – “that’s a good thing.” I want to thank him for that.

Bobby and I have made peace. We have agreed to disagree and have extended the olive branch to one another. That does not mean we are best friends, or happily ever after – it does mean we have agreed to a mutual respect for each other’s opinion and we or at least he will tone down the volume.

And although I remain (in a few minds) “despicable” or (gotta love this) “can’t shine Stoney’s shoes” that criticism comes with the territory. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I loved that Stoney shoes line (JKW) and I confess the verbiage never bothered me, in fact I loved it. Great line.

And before I depart, I ask Alan Sontag and Peter Weichsel  – why can’t you do the right thing? You are superstars in our game. You should lead the way by positive example. If only Kantar or Rosenberg or Alder had asked….would you stand fast? Give it up. You owe us, I take that back – you owe the game more and you certainly don’t need (or want) to win with cheaters at the other table. Or is that OK? I guess so. So it would appear from the cheap seats. You should be ashamed of yourselves clinging to an unlawfully won titile as if it was your God given right. There is no “right” to win with cheaters. You did not earn or merit the Norfolk title – but hell-go ahead – keep it. That is your choice, so be it.  It pales in comparison to all your other fabulous achievements and sadly tarnishes that otherwise unblemished record.

So you tell us – why? You won’t and you can’t because there is NO viable reason for doing so. Winning alongside cheaters?  Apparently that is your legacy. Say it ain’t so.

Truth be told, I am going through divorce, about to be fleeced. I have a couple of children’s/teachers’ and bridge books I want to publish.  Too much on my plate and bridge blogging will have to take a back seat. I am too seasoned to say never again but it will not be the priority it once was.  

So if you are a woman bridge player, hot, loaded, intellectual and with other tangilbe virtues (like children) and a love for Canada’s horrible weather please feel free to email me in privately at:

c.jfrench@rogers.com or danceswithwords@rogers.com

As for blogging let’s just kiss and say goodbye.

C

The Big Leagues

June 24th, 2011  ~  Cam French  ~  1 Comment 

        Tom Cochrane – Big Leagues 

Sportsmanship.

It is woven into the fabric of our game.                                

I think Alan Sontag, Peter Weichsel, Dr. James Sternberg, Steve Sion and Allan Cokin have chosen to ignore that fact on this occasion.

I heard from someone (maybe Bill Pollack, not sure) that Cokin was the only one wanting to toss this back. Maybe he was right.

I said this in CD VII

Alan Sontag in his engaging book The Bridge Bum, recounts how he waived a penalty (and suggested an alternative) against Forquet who had bid out of turn (at stake were 5 Italian Lancia sport cars) on the first board of the match! Instead all “agreed” to Sontag’s suggestion of a re-deal. This in turn won him Sportsman of the Year from the International Bridge Press Association. Sontag said in his book – “I did not want to win on a technicality…taking advantage of a technicality would have proved nothing, especially to myself. My three team mates {Rubin/Granovetter/Weichsel} agreed.”

So Sontag didn’t want to win on a technicality. I applaud that. This in turn wins him IBPA sportsman of the year? Good for him. Congratulations. He is willing to forsake a legal sanction and insert his own (albeit reasonable) solution. Note that the Laws pursuant to a bid out of turn do not provide a re-deal as an option. So this home-cooked solution, as noble as it may have been, is not based upon the Laws, but rather the sentiments of fairness and sportsmanship. Would Edgar have been apopletic? How does winning a title with team mates cheating at the other table reconcile with “I did not want to win on a technicality” to say nothing of his sense of fairness and sportsmanship? It doesn’t.

Is cheating at the other table “a technicality”? Or is it worse? If he wants to win fair and square (and he does), then stand up and prove it. Forqet and Omar Sharif deserve a “re-deal” but fellow citizens don’t deserve any justice for being cheated by Cokin and Sion.

Toss the Norfolk title back. After reading the whole story, perhaps one’s perspectives changes. I ask Dr. James Sternberg, Peter Weichsel, Alan Sontag and Alan Cokin to do the “Spike Lee” {the right thing} and forsake that tainted title. Actions speak louder than words. But let’s be honest – offering a re-deal after an opponent’s gaffe is magnanimous; retaining a title won with cheating team mates at the other table is …. pathetic.

I see no reason to change any of that.

What would you call it? Sportsman-like? Fair? Reasonable? Let’s call a spade a spade. If Sontag and Weichsel want to retain their stolen title – well just what does that say? It tells me that these icons of bridge are in effect apologists for cheaters. They won with cheaters. Their team mates were convicted. Their partners confessed to “basically cheating on every hand they ever played” (ask Bobby) but they imagine that they are untarnished? NO. Wake up, smell the coffee. They are tarnished.

They won unlawfully and to this day retain the fruits of their team mates’ cheating.

That should tell you all you need to know. Let’s face the music. They won with self-confessed and convicted cheaters. Enough already.

Of that there is no question. Don’t believe me – ask Bobby, Kit, Chip. No one wants to taint the armor of the charismatic Sontag or his (then) partner Weichsel. They seem to think they enjoy survivor’s immunity. I beg to differ. So do Capp, Jabbour, Feldman, Sacks, Hoffner and Hann, Paul Soloway, Grant Baze and many other experts who prefer not to be on the record.  It is not rocket science. You win with cheaters, you are part of the team. Like it or not. Check out the sportsmanship here. Note the coaches’ remarks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEDBnKahuNs       

Now that is sportsmanship!

Why did they do it? “She deserved it”.

Zeke and Capp and their team “deserve it” too. Or do they “deserve” to be cheated. Which is it?

“I did not want to win on a technicality…taking advantage of a technicality would have proved nothing, especially to myself.

Care to step up to the plate boys? Hit the home run and we will carry you around the bases. I promise Zeke and Capp will do the heavy lifting.

Why not just do the right thing? That would be such sportsmanship so as to make those college girls blush.

Cheers from the horse-flogger (THF), ty to JKW for that moniker.

So are you sportsmen, or those who tail-gate on the backs of cheaters? Please let us know. Which is it? Right now, we all know. Only you can change that.

Na – convicted cheaters at the other table are ………well ……you fill in the blank. My blank says pathetic. What does yours say? Acceptable? Fine, dandy,  or heaven forbid – “a technicality”?

What’s the problem? Sternberg wants his money back? Zeke and company aren’t worth it? They don’t “deserve it”? They “deserve” to be cheated. OK.

This is the BIG LEAGUES. You owe us more than silence and petty vindictiveness. My late (bless her soul) mother-in-law said – “you sleep with dogs you are gonna to get fleas.” You slept with dogs and their fleas have migrated all over your team.

Time to step up (or not) and show the bridge world you are true members of the BIG LEAGUES. All you will receive is accolades, thanks, appreciation, the respect from many and a free ride around the bases to home plate. How bad can that be? Make history. Set the crooked record straight.

Sportsmanship at its finest. You to call.

Cheers from THF,

C

Who You Gonna Call?

May 19th, 2011  ~  Cam French  ~  2 Comments 

Hilary Duff – Shining Star

(hey I agree EW&F would be preferable……) 

so I toss you a bonus……

Ray Parker Jr. – Ghostbusters

Bob Hamman: Shining Star

I recently spent over an hour on the phone with Bob Hamman. He does not like email, except to arrange appointments, which he did with me.

Maybe it is just me he prefers not to email his insider knowledge. In any case he was frank, funny and as expected the consummate professional. He did not slag Bobby Wolff or anyone else. He rises above, making him the consummate professional. I will condense our conversation into a few interesting anecdotes.

He said he had heard “rumblings” over the years about Cokin/Sion, long before they were caught. He also said he had no proof of firsthand knowledge, even though he had played against them, just heard it through the grapevine. And it was not “old hat” when C/S were caught.

He held out genuine respect for Sion as a player, calling him “intelligent and gifted” which of course he was. We did not broach the flip side of the coin, that being Cokin. But the inference was clear that Cokin did not share the lofty rank of Sion. As I said in CD, that partnership, analagous to Hamman/French was incongruent in the talent levels of the players. That is unusual at the upper echelons; I mean why is Bob Hamman going to play with me when he might have Soloway, Wolff, Kantar, or Zia? Of course he won’t.

So why did Sion – the gifted one (Stevie Wonder) play down and engage Cokin, who was a couple of big steps down the food chain? The answer is – money. I think that was a “tell” as poker players might appreciate. But no one was looking for it back then, because we just didn’t think it was plausible.

Hamman told me that his instincts, based on hands told him one of two things, and this was in reference to Katz/Cohen. Either it was a very weak play or bid, or there was something fishy. In other words, a legitimate expert would never have done said play or bid because it screamed incompetence. 

You see he could not draw the same inferences from my bids or plays, because I don’t share the lofty rank of top flight expert, and probably never will. But it is unlikely I will be drilling his star-studded team as Katz/Cohen were in Houston before the match was truncated. I suugest all readers might want to purchase Danny Kleinman’s Bridge Scandal in Houston. Kleinman goes over each hand, compares the notes of the voyeurs (who suspected cheating), looks at their system in depth and grades each player’s performance. At the end of the day, he sees precious little evidence of K/C cheating, but rather a very poor performance of Hamman’s team, and a few lucky and apparently reasonable results by Katz/Cohen. In the aftermath of the accusations, lawsuits and allegations little was proven, less was confessed. All we know for sure was, the antenae was quivering and the proof is not in this pudding.

Bob Hamman, on the back cover of Danny’s book had this to say:

“I read your book Danny, and you’re simply wrong. There is no way a bad player-Katz-and a mediocre player-Cohen-could win legitimately in a long match against me and my team mates. Where there are bear tracks, there is a bear. Do you have to wait Danny, until the bears walks up to you and bites off your nose?”

Hamman of course was far from alone. Ira Rubin concurs Danny’s book does not play well for the prosecution but he adds this juicy tidbit.

“Before I first played against them, Paul Soloway warned me they were wired, and he was right.”

Danny was a forensic observer. He went through the hands with a fine tooth comb, and let the reader be the judge. Unfortunately Katz and Cohen refused to comment, elaborate or explain why they agreed to withdraw, effectively forfeiting the match. I think we all expect the innoncent to fight with vigor. Maybe the costs to their wallet or professional practises was too much to bear. Let’s just say they sued, and did not acquit themselves with distinction in the annals of the apparently wrongfully convicted.

Hamman saw plays and bids that said to him – no player who is at this level (say playing for the final of a championship event) would ever do that. If they were talented, it would never happen. So why did it happen? The antenna quivers. (Again, this was in reference to Katz/Cohen, following the Huston incident.)

He looks at the evidence and discerns that weak plays are not typically made at this level. So when one jumps out and screams – what could it mean? It means the finalist is not that talented and/or they have a wire.

He trolled back through history and mentioned several players who cheated, most of whom escaped “justice’ because the system  was not equipped to cope. Is it today? Perhaps, but I suppose that depends on who you ask. Don’t ask me. I cite the case – Kenny Gee.

Hamman also felt that today’s game (at the top) was inherently clean. He mentioned more than once Bobby’s opinion of not revising the standings of older events even if based upon cheating was a sentiment he shared. When the field is contaminated, how do you determine a winner? I say, by whoever navigated this minefield the best. In other words, the one who finished best lawfully. I confess, I can’t imagine how an event can be held without a winner. Of course bridge is alone as a sport on an icefloe with this one, isolated and destined to sink.  

As Cokin noted (about him commenting on his role as disclosed in Collateral Damage) “what is the upside?” And he was right too. When you are in up to your eyeballs, how do you get out? You can’t apparently. That certainly is the sentiment shared by Dr. Sternberg and his hires. The cone of silence, omerta. That may not serve the greater good, but in this case it may well serve self-interest. Sadly, for a game that is based upon ethics, some cling to their unlawfully won trophies. Let them. They deserve them.

So, take it from Bob Hamman. There was a lot of crookedness. Cheating was rampant within the elite. (Though Hamman did NOT agree with that “rampant” description.) Just ask Bobby. The Italians were sanctioned and to this day, with Burgay tapes and Bianci’s confessions, Truscot’s evidence leave the Blue Team unconvicted, though hardly untarnished. Will Garozzo step up and confess the sins of his countrymen? Sure, right after I win the lottery.

Today (at least at the top) the game is clean. Or so they say. I tend to believe them. They all know each other, French or Schmo does not suddenly appear in the Spingold quarterfinals on his debut. It takes talent to get there.

From Hamman’s conversation and perspective – what can we learn? How can we move on and make our game as integral as it should be?

I think the onus has to be on the expert player. He or she sees things the rest of us don’t. Their skill, “the antennae quivers” as Sontag so eloquently put it; allows experts to see things on a unique plane. As well they should. Like the recorder system, there might be a vehicle to report suspicious players. If you accuse and can’t prove it – well you will be thrown out faster than an Ozzie Smith toss to first base. Maybe we need our own “Internal Affairs” investigative unit. This would enable players to report possible transgressions, without facing the recoil if mistaken. (No, this was not Hamman’s idea.)

I guess one thing I learned from him is he expects his opponents to do the right thing most of the time. So when they don’t, he sees them as incompetent or (less likely) “juiced”. Of course he plays against the best so often; he doesn’t have to face the random skill level of the likes of me. I hope, should I face him in the upcoming Spingold he will see my exotic plays for what they are worth – a weaker player swinging for the bleachers.

I think he is disgusted (as are we all) by those who defile our game. How to remedy the cheated? Well that is a tough road to hoe. No one knows. All we know is the present (and former) rules just don’t work. Danny Kleinman doesn’t know who to call to report suspicious players – and of course he is far from alone because “who you gonna call”?

Our game is based upon the principles of ethics and fairness. When that is violated, we should feel anger, disgust and despoiled. If cheaters retain their ill-gotten gains, well, that just doesn’t work for most of us.

Hammon (or Hambone as he is apparently referred to by his friends), and no – I am not part of the fraternity did not weigh in with specifics on the Norfolk incident. He did tell me three years ago that it was a great story, and it should be explored but if I expected a revision of history, when then I was mistaken. And of course, he was right.

I think I can safely say he and all (Ok most) of us want an integral game. And that means playing fairly, and doing the right thing. Not so tough when you think about it. 

C

And I am just about done with blogging. Just came back to say goodbye. I grow weary of the toll. Not saying never again but am saying….Na Na Na hey hey godbye.

Classical Gas

May 5th, 2011  ~  Cam French  ~  14 Comments 

                                        Classical Gas  

                                     Mason Williams – Classical Gas (guitar solo)

Bobby.

You are a fabulous politician. I was and am a student of political science, love the intricacies of politics and see you issue so many disclaimers, alibis and embellishments, it makes me blush. I think back to Lew Richardson, and smile. 

_______________________________________________________________________

Bobby Wolff March 22nd, 2011 at 2:44 pm

Somehow my personality prevents me from remaining quiet when I hear untruths (a euphemistic term) about history, particularly bridge history so here goes.

In 1973 or possibly 1974, (you have to be kidding) while playing at the Bal Harbour Spring Regionals in a KO match against a team with Sion-Cokin (SC) on it (and losing) I brought their cheating to light in the form of an appeal to an outrageous lead (incidentally, exotic/outrageous/killing leads were part of their weaponry, even though that was never proved) or l by one of them to a sequence which went 1NT P 3NT at the other table against my teammates Jimmy Cayne and partner while playing with Charlie Weed as my partner. At the time Jim Sternberg (who at that time was sponsoring SC) and who, no doubt to me thought they were innocent, and other than that association has always been before and since a credit to our game, (That “association” is a damn big “other”. Sternberg’s consistent silence, his embrace of denial that S/C even cheated is beyond the pale. So please, don’t alibi for Sternberg. He needs a shake if he can’t believe S/C cheated. Let him peruse the confessions. I won’t deluge the reader with more evidence. Such a position is willfully blind.CF) was, of course non-plussed and a staunch defender of them.

Why “of course?” I suggest it is clear he should have considered the evidence before leaping in to defend and exonerate his hires. He is not Johnny Cochrane. He cast his die with cheaters and in your own words was “a staunch defender of them.” You noted with your friend Bob Saron; that endorsement would entail a consequence. Perhaps, given the overwhelming evidence available he might stand up and do the right thing. Will that happen? Sure. I get the fact that Sterberg and company don’t want to go there, but in a game where ethics are paramount - why can’t they do the right thing?  I just don’t get that.

In my opinion, Sternberg made a hasty and unfortunate choice. He owes it to bridge, not me, not Zeke, not Capp, not you to re-assess that decision. Standing toe-to-toe with confessed cheaters is hardly a viable position. But that is the position he, Sontag and Weichsel have chosen. GL to them.

The ACBL District Director from Florida, Bob Saron, also came to their defense and instead of at least creating suspicion of their actions, I was criticized publicly for bringing what I thought (at least to a sophisticated audience) a slam dunk to at least start the official monitoring.

So let me get this straight. You suspected them back in 1973 or 1974. They weren’t caught until June 1979. Why the gap? Was there any investigation? Did you share your perspectives with someone who might actually DO SOMETHING, versus standing down? Why were the (in Sontag’s words) “the antennae {NOT} quivering”? That strikes me as an awfully long passage of time for cheaters to continue their unfettered contamination of multiple events. You told all of us that their confessions reveal that they basically cheated on every hand they ever played together.

As a sidelight, years later, 1981, I started serving my 2nd term on the ACBL BOD’s (having served briefly in 1963). Bob Saron (who together with his lovely wife Sally were both truly wonderful people) decided to run for ACBL President against Doug Drew (Toronto) and, this being my first election it became clear that Bob was the favorite since he had groomed himself by waiting his turn and was, of course, very well-liked. It turned out that his support of SC, by this time their cheating scandal was old hat, raised its head and he lost the election to Doug ignominiously, never after that to be elected even dogcatcher in spite of being pro-bridge, very bright, a hard worker and together with Sally among the most liked pairs on the BOD’s.

Incidentally, earlier, at the Spring Nationals in Houston my Vanderbilt team played against SC in an early match (this time winning) when Bob Hamman and I became convinced beyond any doubt that they were cheating, but at that time we did not have the material evidence available to prosecute a case.

Incidentally, I am sure you were 100% accurate to be on to them. But if you became “convinced” you must have had some evidence,  hands, leads, bids, exotic defenses that fueled your conviction. If so “convinced”, why stand down? Why not engage some fellow experts to gather the information? How could you allow these cheaters who you were on to – to continue? I confess – I don’t get it.

By the time Robinson-Woolsey (probably with some help) did the deed at the GNT regional finals (sometime after Norfolk) (June at the GNT in Atlanta vs. March in Norfolk, 1979 NABCs, though of course the same pattern CF) and while it was news to many, it was ho-hum to Bob and me. Later the ACBL, with their known legal wimpiness took over and we are now where we are.

No. In the meantime while you were convnced (“old hat”) and did zip, countless others were swindled. As you yourself said, Cokin admitted they cheated on every event they ever played in. And it took five long years from your realization until Woolsey/Martel’s intervention at Norfolk in March (not Robinson/Woolsey, who were part of the solution at Atlanta during the GNTs) to bring this matter to fruition. If Martel and woolsey and company did not intervene – how much longer would this charade continue? Someone had to step up. You had that opportunity 5 years prior.

Only as a sidelight can I relate how since then, Alan Cokin has done everything he can to help bridge (especially with Junior team training) and, at least in his relationship with me, has been a model reformer

I will happily concur that Cokin remains the repentant and redeemed party in all of this. Still, as we can all imagine, some are willing to forgive, but not forget. For example, I know of a top-flight player whose captain hired Cokin to coach their team. This person was very disturbed, and uncomfortable (to be kind) with this arrangement. It was reported that Cokin was great on the theoretical end, but when it came to the hands; the player(s) simply felt he had no credibility. That is, rightly or otherwise a price that he will have to pay. Rightly IMHO.

while Sion continued his sociopathic behavior and has now been barred permanently from the ACBL. If anyone wants to check the truth of my story or my recollections please consult any of the above parties mentioned…….                                       

To be sure, and for a relatively long period of time I have maintained what I have always thought. What happened in Norfolk was indescribedly ridiculous:

1. That SC had not previously been caught.

2. That cheaters and all their possible partners and teammates should be officially erased from any and all tournaments won with the guilty player(s) on their team or pair.

3. That no one should be moved up, because of the several reasons I have listed before, some of which have to do with the uncertainty of who would have won and also the undoubtedly unfair result of “How about all the other tournaments where the cheating pair won and nothing at all was ever done to correct those abominations”. I am not, in any way, trying to be vindictive against anyone who thinks he would have won and is entitled to be named the winner, I am just trying to respect my own view which is to try and be fair and just. (Please keep in mind that my team finished 2d in 4 straight World Championships 1972-1975 to a team which perhaps one day, at least I am hoping, will be part of an official announcement of, at least, prior irregularities). (It won’t happen, you have nothing to fear, sad but true. CF)

If it does happen, I DO NOT think that my team should be moved up. Pity, I do. CF (At least we are both consistent.)

If you are playing in the final, head to head against cheaters (as you allege), even though they have certainly KO’d other teams unlawfully, and you can prove they cheated, why should there not be a lawful winner? Cite the case in any other sport where a major event is played, and no winner declared. It doesn’t exist. We are all alone in this stance of no winner. Maybe we all lose from such a position. I don’t see the upside.

4. The WBF current rule (unless unbenounced to me it has been removed) which I suggested and was unanimously approved, if ever a player or pair is convicted of cheating all of the previous tournaments that guilty player, pair or team, participated in and won, all players on that team will be stripped of their victory(s). My principle reason for suggesting this statute is to basically deputize all possible honest partners and/or teammates to not trivialize the possibility of playing with as partner or teaming up with miscreants. I Love that and applaud you for being a driving force in this regard.

The above comments are made only to try and right possible misconceptions which, while usually trying to be made in good faith, sometimes loses much meaning in the describing and thus the interpretation.

_____________________________________________________

We can all agree to disagree.

But, and it is a BIG BUTT, if I suspected Sion/Cokin 4/5 years before they were caught and I did little or nothing, especially as I was (in Bobby’s case) a high ranking authority with the ability and rank to compel change, launch investigations, execute authority and/or empower the appropriate body to do so I would habe done so. Why did that not happen? Is that too much to ask?

No.

it is the minimum, not the maximum.  

Bobby, I think you doth protest too much.

Please no alibis for cheaters, and I love your WBF rule. When (as if) will the ACBL adopt the same? Quit laughing.

Classical Gas.

C

Baby – You Can Leave Your Hat On

April 26th, 2011  ~  Cam French  ~  5 Comments 

 Joe Cocker – You Can Leave Your Hat On (1)

Matchpoints. Uggh!

Damn I hate that game.

Like Hal Holbrook said to the young, greedy Charlie Sheen in Wall Street, “the trouble with money {like matchpoints} is it makes you do things you would not otherwise do.”  

Some, less informed than me might say that too often applies to professional players, but I think for the vast majority – that is just untrue. Although Edgar did say as much…..and of course he would be one of the better informed.

For matchpoints, it’s an all new ballgame. It means balancing with reckless abandon, lead-directing overcalls on 4 card suits, playing in NT at all costs and avoiding the minors like minefields – you just don’t want to go there. Matchpoints is bridge on the razor’s edge, like sudden-death overtime with every shot, bid, play carrying momentous consequences.

And in many ways it is a great equalizer as every hand counts for identical value. If you score +430 while the field is +420 you enjoy a top by 10 lousy points. If you go for a huge digit say toll-free (800) or two sticks and two wheels (1100) well – it is only a bottom board, it is not (like it might be in imps) a match-killer.

Most experts I dare say prefer IMPS. Why? Imp scoring allows for more creativity to make or break contracts. Trying an under-lead of your ace to break a cast iron contract in imps is a given, in matchpoints it could be suicide. Matchpoints you are concerned about the field. If you happen to reach 3NT with only 9 tricks and you can see that 4H is cold, well clearly you put at risk your (below-average scoring) contract for an overtrick. To do so at imps would be sheer lunacy because the risk-to-reward ratio is not the same.

I suppose Imp scoring adds clarity. Make it or break it. The experts know at MPs you need to be “rabbit-killers”, meaning drill the weaker players. You can and must take more chances and the expert’s shot at an extra overtrick or undertrick is vastly superior so ….you draw the inferences.

All of this is old hat to the battle scarred veterans. 

So let’s try a new hat – or – if you prefer – baby you can leave your hat on.

You hold a modest collection: 65 1064 J852 AK84 (playing matchpoints) and the bidding goes pass by you 2NT (20-21) on your left, pass, pass back to you. Do you have anything to think about?

(No, it is not your lead.)  

Ponder that question for a moment before scrolling down.

HMM…..in my younger days I would have said without reservation – NO – what the hell is there to think about?

I recall my good friend David Turner telling me years ago this was an “automatic” double. I tried this gambit recently with the bots (albeit an artificial testing ground) and was rewarded with down 2 +500 win 15 imps on BBO. But this was the open pairs on Saturday’s Easter Regional  in Toronto. I contemplated the matter only briefly and applied the axe. It went all pass. My partner (Vince Oddy) chuckled and muttered “Johnny Matchpoint” and led a spade. This was the deal in full.

Dealer: N Vul: NS	North ♠ 65 ♥1064 ♦ J862 ♣ AK84
West ♠ Q97 ♥ 53 ♦ 9753 ♣ J975		East ♠ AK84 ♥ AQ98 ♦ AQ4 ♣ Q3
	South ♠ J1032 ♥ KJ72 ♦ K10  ♣ 1062

Declarer, perhaps rattled did not play to best advantage and when the smoke cleared was down 2 +300 and a cold top for us.

Another strategy you might employ is always raise to 3NT, especially if playing against “Joe” double adherents. And, yet another if you know me, Turner, Mcphee, Litvac (and an abundance of others) are at your table you can pass with 5/6 points, await our Joe double and punish us. So I guess the moral of the story is – know who you are playing against and their proclivities.

So baby – take off your shoes, your dress and everything else but leave your hat on and try the “Joe Cocker” (or in my case the”Turner”) double. It just might make your matchpoint play a lot more fun. BTW we finished third and for the record partner, I am not Johnny Matchpoint. I don’t recall the last time I played matchpoints but you helped make this time a real treat. But you can call me Joe anytime.

JMP 

C

Mercy

March 22nd, 2011  ~  Cam French  ~  1 Comment 

                                                        Marvin Gay – Mercy 

              Collateral Damage Secrets Volume I

I guess one thing that just puzzles me is the lack of bitterness from Zeke in particular and most of his team. I confess, had I been cheated out of a National title I would be embittered, angry, irate, OK, plain pissed. And just how would you feel? I think we, the perpetrators and the League have lost sight of that. There were real victims here; of that there is no doubt.

Everyone I have talked to from Bobby to Grant holds Zeke in the highest esteem. He seems to be one that rises above. That takes a certain strength of character, not one that I have at this point, but maybe I can learn from that. Maybe we all can.

So for the first time, I am going to share some of our private correspondence. Of course we are always more candid in private than in public. These are private, and although initially I wanted to edit out some remarks, I did not.  So you see every word, warts, venom and all. Do I wish I had said some things differently? YES! If I ever imagined it was going to appear in print. Some will take offence, and if I were in their shoes I would feel the same. However I know I would do the right thing and not be subject to a public forum showcasing my ethical shortcomings. I have no doubt that the vast majority of experts and certainly Zeke and team would do the same. And let’s call a spade a spade, that is exactly what they suffer from - an ethical deficit. How do you justify unlawfully winning let alone retaining the fruits accrued therein? When you can tell us, we’ll all know.

When I was researching the story, I reached out to many, trying to fit the pieces together, to understand the dynamic of the time, the rules of engagement and this was just sent to me from Zeke inviting me to publish it. To tell the truth, I had forgotten all about this chat. I think you will find his remarks enlightening, I know I did. If Zeke invites me to share this, then I accept his offer. Thanks Zeke.

I loved the part about young men (I guess that might be me) seeking justice, and older men (that would be their team) seeking mercy. Thus the song title.

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the emails.

If you happen to have seen the Fab Five film you will have noted that basically one guy broke the rules by accepting significant amounts of money and favors from a booster–which he promised to pay back when he reached the NBA (which he was ‘certain’ to do).  He never cheated or shaved points; he just accepted the unacceptable.  It set back one of the best programs in the country for at least two decades.  The university voluntarily stripped the team of its championships, fired a good coach, dismantled the  pennants in the field house and waited for the NCAA to inflict even greater damage–which they did. Talk about collateral damage!

I won’t belabor the obvious analogy.–Z

—– Original Message —–

From: Zeke Jabbour

To: Cameron French

Cc: Ron Feldman ; david sacks ; Mike Cappalletti

Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 6:21 PM

Subject: Nobility has little to do with it.doc

Hi Cam,

If you want to include this interview or exchange we had in September ’09, you’re welcome to.  It provides some explanation of my reasons for not extending as much energy as I might have.  It is said that young men seek justice and old men seek mercy.  I was as disappointed as anybody but I don’t have enough time to remain bitter.  Besides, I’m  having trouble typing these days.

Tonight they are showing a film about the fab five.  I’m sure that it  will show what happens to a team in other sports, even with innocents involved.  All parties, regardless of involvement, absorb major punishment.  The entire university community suffered.

Anyway, here’s  our exchange. 

Oh, one more thing, have you  thought about submitting your monograph to  Wikes pedia encyclopedia?  May not make any difference but they publish some unexpected material.

(If one of you readers can help me explore this I might be interested. When Zeke talks, I listen. )

_____________________________________________________

Nobility has little to do with it.  Perhaps serenity in my declining years; perhaps surviving a vicissitude with some dignity. But few could have surpassed the job you are doing.

—– Original Message —–

From: Cameron French

To: ‘Jabbour’ ; BIZAMERICA@aol.com ; ‘david sacks’ ; Mikecappx@aol.com

Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 6:10 PM

Subject: RE: One year anniversary, Victims

Thanks Zeke for sharing your insight. You MUST be the only guy who won and lost 2 National Titles in the same year! Wow.

I confess, your lack of anger is nobler than I could be. No doubt you moved on a long time ago. Me, a newcomer to this saga, and I find myself livid with Sontag/Weichsel, Jim “Flash” Gordon, and Rose Meltzer – who called me “sick”  (and their ilk) and I wasn’t the one swindled! Easy to shoot the messenger I guess. I hope to sit down at the table against them one of these days, just to “feel the love” at the table.

The fact that Sontag and Weichsel are angrier than you says something – not sure what it says but obviously you have taken the high road. As for them, well their actions speak for themselves, then and now. I guess leopards don’t change their spots. I guess I won’t see my name as NPC atop any of your titles soon. Pity. BTW that means that I remain uncompensated for the story. Capp told me that Bobby Wolff asked him how much you were paying me. My answer – “not enough”. My bill is “in the mail”…….. 

Wishing you well, and as you wish your remarks will remain off the record.

Chip Martel told me that the previous fall National (Denver) he became suspicious of them. But to my knowledge no effort was undertaken by anyone to monitor them prior to Martel, Woolsey et.al. at Norfolk.

From: Jabbour [mailto:jabbour@comcast.net]

Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 4:58 PM

To: Cameron French; BIZAMERICA@aol.com; david sacks; Mikecappx@aol.com

Subject: Re: One year anniversary, Victims

Scroll down to answers.

—– Original Message —–

From: Cameron French

To: Jabbour ; BIZAMERICA@aol.com ; david sacks ; Mikecappx@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 5:25 PM

Subject: One year anniversary, Victims

Hi gentlemen,

I guess I am agitated because precious little has been accomplished (in terms of 3/79) and to my mind “in the blogosphere” is nice, but insufficient. The fact that Sontag and others have their knickers in a knot is telling. It tells me that they are pissed at their names in print in a less than flattering format. My spies (and his actions) suggest Sontag is next to apoplectic while Weichsel is trying to be low key and fly under the radar, let it all blow over. Cokin is pissed. 

I managed to piss off Compton when I asked him to put me in touch with him. (I did have Cokin’s email, but of course, he never answered.) Apparently Compton allowed Cokin to be a eulogist at Grant Baze’s funeral and that sent many running for the barf bags. Have not heard much from the general or expert public. So I thought it was time to stir the pot and talk about it once more. Shine the spotlight again, and see what happens. Specifically I was thinking of talking about it from your point of view.

Sorry.  I always seem to be behind and I’m about to leave town for 3 weeks. 1979 was the first year I attended nationals after a long hiatus from bridge and I was pretty much unaware of what was going on.

What did it mean to you to learn the League know in Norfolk and did nothing?

I don’t know when I learned.  I’m sure that I was outraged.  I won two national events that year and am listed as second in both.  The other one was a simple undetected (in time) scoring error.  I was told that they had monitored S/C in the nationals previous to Norfolk and the one subsequent to it, and I felt that that had knowingly left us unprotected. (if that is true, just think about it. CF)

How about learning that friends knew, and never told you?

I don’t think they did.  Many suspected it. But nobody knew for sure. I had played against S/C once previously in a regional swiss.  We beat them 77-0.  My partner, Larry Mori told me that people think they cheat and I replied that, if they do, they’re not very good at it.

Do you feel the result would have been the same if the cheated team had a Hamman/Wolff; Edgar/Norman or a like high profile team?

Yes.  Those people were cheated, as well.  They just didn’t finish second in that event.  The problem lay in the general atmosphere following the heavy-handed treatment of Katz-Cohen with expensive legal and insurance consequences. The ACBL establishment was terrified of the financial consequences. It’s a tricky business proving that a single unusual action was an act of organized cheating. A team with greater gravitas might have gotten more of a hearing, but I believe, in the absence of a smoking gun, their result would have been similar.

What made you (as a team) easy to dismiss in spite of Gary Hann’s efforts?

Money. The ACBL legal counsel, the courts, the threat of cancelled insurance and a general, albeit incorrect, feeling among some members that it hadn’t been their ox that had been gored. But money was the principal driving force.

What do you thing the League might do NOW?

They will probably pay sincere lip service to stopping cheating, and maybe beef up the mechanics of prevention, but I don’t expect them to look back.  Too complicated–even though the Norfolk case is unique.  Kaplan understood that.  But like health care reform, it’s too complicated to explain.

What would you like to say Alan Sontag, Peter Weichsel, Dr. James Sternberg and Alan Cokin?

Nothing.  They are adults. Except for Cokin (who also happens to be the only one who has said that the championships should be stripped) It is up them to decide what to do. Once again, the real impediment is financial.  These guys are professionals–two of them hall of famers as a result of their bridge successes.  They are not anxious to do anything that will damage their careers.  They have already been punished, not by the ACBL, but by an unanticipated source: Cam.

What would you like to say about the whole affair?

Not much. It’s disgraceful, but In my eighties, I have a limited horizon and I prefer to expend my energies toward the future rather than dwelling on the past. (emphasis added)

I do not expect anyone–the league, the team–anyone, to do anything that is inimical to their own interests. I expect no profiles in courage and I am not sitting in judgment.  I am satisfied that Cam has exposed the truth, and that is significant, perhaps even sufficient, unto itself.

With your consent I would include your thoughts in an “anniversary” essay.  If you don’t want your thoughts on print, that is of course your prerogative.

Actually I prefer not–unless you feel a need for them. I prefer to look ahead.

I think that maybe this story got off track. Somehow (by some twisted means) it has become about Sontag/Weichsel. It is not about them. It reminds me of Karl Rove somehow turning John Kerry’s Swift Boat service and two tours in Vietnam into a liability. Maybe S/W hired Karl to do some PR polishing. I hate the bastard but respect him as a formidable campaigner. I want him on my team. I hope that revealing the cheated team’s feelings will put a more human face on this. Let’s remember who the “victims” really are. I am not sure the general public sees it that way. 

Anyway – if you think you would like to participate, drive up. If not, I am afraid this is destined to blow over, remain an orphan cheating case, denied lineage and the scrutiny it deserves.

Cheers,

C

 I think the reader will agree it took some courage to publish that. None of us like sharing our skeletons. Do you have the courage to post a comment? On va voir. I predict precious and few but I hope I am wrong. Step up, like Zeke and speak your piece, should you have the cajones to do to.

Teacher, writer, bridge player,lover of language. See Collateral Damage, Barry and Me  and other bridge essays at:

www.bridgeblogging.com

Watchin’ the Detectives

March 6th, 2011  ~  Cam French  ~  No Comments 

Elvis Costello – Watching the Detectives 

First, if you have not read  Hooked on a Feeling (by me) and/or Shades of Gray (Ray Lee) do so. They are one page down below. They deal with the Howard Piltch Spingold hand.

I never heard what, if anything became of this incident. It’s a SECRET – and we the public are not privy to the inner chamber. The detectives have that well under wraps. If only the League was as good at sharing information as they are at hiding it. It’s like they are Homeland Security and are not accountable to anyone.

That is one of the many problems of “justice” within the bridge community. The cone of silence, for all you Get Smart fans.

Did Howard have a wire? I see precious little evidence to support that. Apart from innuendo and granted, a compelling but hardly damning example of one whole hand from a long team match (and career) – there is a wisp of smoke but  where is the fire? I recall some violation(s) by Howard, but the details were not publicly released so I (and the public)  don’t know the depth of these committee meetings because they never tell us. This is from District 24 Newsletter, edited by Alvin Levy, Volume 01.2.

2. In the matter of Howard Piltch’s (ACBL number N966671) appeal of the decision of District 25 Disciplinary and Appellate Committee’s decisions, the committee affirms the factual findings of the committees, but finds that the previous discipline is excessive under ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations (CDP)  guidelines. Therefore, the discipline shall be reduced to a public reprimand and 30 days probation. Mr. Piltch is deemed to have already served 30 days probation in this matter. [Howard Piltch has been disciplines twice in a 24-month period and therefore has incurred an additional 2-year probation.}

What the hell does that mean? Please enlighten all of us. If reduced to 30 days (as it was) then it doesn’t sound like he stole the crown jewels of the empire. What exactly did he do?

From Jonathan Steinberg’s 12/95 District 2 report we see:

Special Committees investigating allegations against District 25 board member Howard Piltch and the removal of Bob Rosen as ACBL National Recorder released their findings. No charges were laid against Mr. Piltch. The removal of Bob Rosen was upheld. No details, so we are left to speculate.

What the hell was that about? Sure, a few connected insiders know the whole prior history, but we the membership are stuck in the dark. According to Ray :

3) The director was consulted at some stage by the opposing team, but did not change the table result.  The opposing team did not lodge an appeal (they won the match by more than 100 IMPs) but did express an intent to pursue the matter in a Conduct and Ethics hearing.

Well, did they? Or didn’t they? if so, what were the findings? if not, why not? A lack of evidence perhaps? I have no idea but I do think that we the bridge playing public, and certainly Howard deserve to know the outcome.

What happened?

Or does a team, chagrined by a wild result, even thought ultimately winning by 100 imps, insinuate cheating and then walk way into the night? If Howard was guilty, let’s string him up. And if he is not, let’s say so. Looks to me like a very little smoke, no fire. Surely someone for the prosecution can find a pattern of dubious results, assuming that exists. if not, let’s not smear a name without cause and more to the point without evidence. Cheaters have a pattern. One hand is not a pattern. To the prosecutors I say make the case. We all deserve nothing less.

C

Hooked on a Feeling

December 16th, 2010  ~  Cam French  ~  15 Comments 

Grand Funk Railroad – Hooked on a Feeling

Remember the Pilch hand Ray wrote up?

Ray Lee wrote under the title Shades of Gray:

I’ve stolen the title for this blog from a forthcoming MPP book, which just happens to be a novel revolving around cheating at bridge, the difficulty of proving it, and the conundrum of what to do with the culprit(s) when it is finally proven.  I wanted to comment on an incident in the New Orleans Spingold, which has already been the subject of much discussion and controversy on various bridge forums.

First, the deal in question:

You are playing the round of 64 in the Spingold against a much higher seed.  You start the second quarter about 40 behind, and this board comes up early on:

♠ –  ♥ A x x  ♦ A Q x x   ♣ A K Q 7 x x

You are red against white, and RHO opens 3♠. Your call.

No, this isn’t a quiz; that was just to give you a moment or two to think about how you might proceed.  What happened at the table was the holder of this hand, Howard Piltch (a professional player but not a top-ranked expert), bid 6♦.  This was a dramatic winner when dummy hit with essentially king fourth of diamonds and out and both minors behaved well.

There’s a lot of to-ing and fro-ing on the forums, but let me try to distil it at least into what is undisputed in terms of further facts.

1) At no stage did Mr. Piltch claim that his bid had been a mechanical error or some other kind of accident.  His partner claims it was a ‘state of the match’ attempt to generate a swing.

2) The boards were dealt at the table, apparently with all four players present.  Mr. Piltch made only one board of the eight, which he remembers as being Board 8 (not the one in question).

3) The director was consulted at some stage by the opposing team, but did not change the table result.  The opposing team did not lodge an appeal (they won the match by more than 100 IMPs) but did express an intent to pursue the matter in a Conduct and Ethics hearing.

This, you will I’m sure recognize, leaves many questions unasked and a great deal of information ungathered, which makes the whole ‘Was he or wasn’t he?’ discussion somewhat academic.  So I’m not going to go into that at all.  However, there are some possibly new points that are perhaps worth making here.

First, since this was a dealt board, and had not yet been played at the other table, presumably the only direct cheating method available would be introducing a stacked deck.  Lest you feel this is unlikely, let me mention that there have been at least two well-proven cases of deck-substitution in the Toronto area alone.  One of the perpetrators, after being banned, later showed up playing on OkBridge – using two different user accounts and playing in partnership with himself, incognito, to improve his rating. Once a cheater…

Second, how much evidence is required to convict a player of cheating?  This is where bridge courts separate from real life.  Alan Truscott (in The Great Bridge Scandal) remarks that it’s very difficult to prove cheating from hand records, but that it is possible to prove the reverse.  Terence Reese, in his apologia Story of an Accusation, understandably argues that the hands tell the tale in either event.  Reese was of course famously acquitted after a judicial hearing presided over by a non-bridge-player, who applied the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard to the case.  Allan Falk, an expert bridge player and also a prominent Michigan attorney, wrote a fascinating essay for the MPP edition of TGBS, in which he points out that nowhere except in criminal courts is this standard applied.  Elsewhere, in both sports tribunals and real life (and O.J. Simpson’s first two trials are a well-known example), the test is ‘preponderance of the evidence’.  So too it is (or should be) with bridge.

Third, and perhaps most interestingly, is the issue of whether Mr. Pitch’s past record should have any bearing upon people’s willingness to believe him guilty of some kind of wrongdoing in this instance.  The question of prior record is another where we needs must part company with criminal procedure.  The previous convictions of the accused are not revealed in court until a conviction has been recorded, and are taken into consideration only for the purposes of sentencing.  However, in bridge, one instance alone is rarely enough to convict.

Arthur Clarke once wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.  So when the disparity in ability between players is great enough, the lesser mortals will find it difficult to understand how the experts get to the right spot, and make brilliant leads and plays, apparently ‘seeing through the backs of the cards’.  Eventually the experts may even be suspected of cheating.  ‘Strange’ bids too can attract accusations, yet bidding is far from an exact science (look at any magazine bidding panel, and you’ll see 30-odd experts all arguing vehemently that five different bids are each the only correct action).  So much is ‘style’, or even table feel.  It is when actions deemed ‘unusual’ work out a high percentage of the time, or when a player finds the brilliant lead on just too many occasions, that antennae start to quiver – and when probably something is indeed going on. Any single occurrence may mean nothing – a lucky guess, an opponent flashing his hand, a flight of fancy that happened to work, or some such.  It is the multiple, as these incidents repeat themselves, which begins to make the case – and since we so often play against different opponents, it takes a while for anyone to notice.

Thus we have the ‘Recorder’ system, and the ability to look at a player’s track record of unexplained incidents, a record that taken as a whole may add up to an unappetizing picture.  As one forum poster put it, “If I were a judge in a bridge matter and the facts as presented came before me to make a ruling without revealing the identity of the 6♦ bidder, I would be highly doubtful that there could be any innocent explanation of the events that unfolded.  And, if I was told that the person who bid 6♦ on this hand was the person who is being discussed above, that would end all doubt for me.”

In the words of Ian Fleming, ‘Once is happenstance; twice is coincidence, and three times is enemy action.’

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here is a little food for thought. There was a lot of verbiage about whether this was merely imaginative or “swinging” (or whether Howard had a wire) on the hand. Here is a comment from one connected insider. This person has served on Conducts and Ethics Committees and other executive functions for the ACBL for some 40+ years. He knows of what he speaks.

Michael HustonNovember 2nd, 2010 at 4:45 pm

1) The quantum standard of proof in the US (and, I believe, England) is “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases and “preponderance of the evidence” in civil matters. It is specifically spelled out as “preponderance” in the ACBL CDR.

2) The ACBL CDR makes clear that previous record may only be considered by a disciplinary body after a verdict on the facts has been determined. In this way the ACBL attempts to minimize any effect of prejudice on the weighing of the evidence. This is hardly an irrational position for the League to take.

3) Whatever one might think of Mr. Piltch personally (and I do not rate as one of his fans), and no matter what one might think of how suspicious his 6D bid was, in order for the speculations to continue there should be some evidence that he had the opportunity to cheat in deciding to make that 6D call. I am unaware of any such evidence. I have heard entirely unofficially that the decks were clean, the shuffles were witnessed by all the players at the table, Piltch dealt only one hand and it wasn’t the hand in question, there were no bathroom breaks before the hand came up, and there were no electronic devices available to Piltch.

Mr. Piltch may be suspicious until found guilty, but let’s not convict him without appropriate and sufficient evidence. Above all, let’s not convict him just because it’s so hard to catch cheaters.

Michael Huston

BTW, when someone with the staure and standing like Michael Huston stands up and speaks out, perhaps we should all pay attention. I thank Michael for doing so.

As I understand it, and Ray reported it, the opponenets apparently wanted the hand “recorded” with the director.

3) The director was consulted at some stage by the opposing team, but did not change the table result.  The opposing team did not lodge an appeal (they won the match by more than 100 IMPs) but did express an intent to pursue the matter in a Conduct and Ethics hearing.

The clear inference is one of impropriety. So, did they report it and what if anything did the director do? Can anyone shed light upon this? Ray? I hope with such an interesting hand, wonderful (because it worked) bid, (or was it otherwise? as clearly some have reservations and perhaps deservedly so) and unaddressed allegations we can close this file on a positive note.

I know one thing, if I face a like scenario, I would try such a gambit. Especially on the off-chance I was down at the half to a superior squad.

The saddest part about this case – our lack of knowledge, information. No one even posted the whole hand, or named the opponents or reported with accuracy prior allegations/convictions about Howard. So here we are in the dark, and the information of import is slammed shut tighter than a clam with lockjaw. Informed and enlightened, we can all make superior judgements. Let’s have some enlightenment here.

 The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance. 

~ Socrates