Cam.

Quite simply the best and most honest writing I have ever read, transcending War & Peace, Citizen Kane, Crime and Punishment (appropriate) and even (religious people please do not look) the Bible (both old and new). It will take a while for my tears to dry, but I am really very choked up.

THE WHOLE WORLD WIDE BRIDGE WORLD THANKS YOU. SEEK THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YE FREE! YOU WILL FOREVER BE EVERYONE’S HERO!

Dear Cam:

Your unexpected masterpiece left me speechless as few can put themselves in other people’s shoes. Your “behind home plate description” of my bird’s eye view may help readers to understand my frustration as I stood by helplessly, listened to the horror stories and just watched them continue. Perhaps as related through different eyes (yours), some non-believers may back off and accept what really happened. In any event, it matters not as we cannot go back and turn around the course of history. We can only attempt to safeguard our hobby for the future and make sure the authorities make stronger efforts to police the game (which I believe is beginning to happen) — but perhaps fifty years too late.

I agree – that’s a very nice summary of the issues, Cam.

When I was working with Alan Sontag on the second edition of his classic book ‘The Bridge Bum’, I pressed him to make clearer his opinions on cheating in bridge. The result was Chapter 9 of the book, which talks about Reese-Schapiro, the Italians (all of them) and Sontag’s own encounters with suspicious behaviour. A few years later, Alan was playing in the final of the World Senior Bowl against a pair that had previously been suspended for cheating. He won the set something like 65-2, effectively ending the match. Afterwards he told me that before play began, he told his opponents exactly what he expected of them in terms of deportment; in particular, he itemized a number of actions he would not allow them to employ (including inconsistent placement of their cards on the table on defense, etc.). He had no doubt that this preamble had produced a level card table for the session — hence the score.

Let me, as Alan did in that same chapter, quote from a 1973 article in ‘The Bridge World’, which said in effect that champion players know when they are being cheated, but the problem is proof. “A few too many inspired opening leads, some competitive decisions that are just too consistently lucky… Also, there is the tell-tale rattle in the tempo of cheating players. Since they are in possession of different information from that available to a normal pair, their problems are different — their little flickers of hesitation come at odd times. It is the business of top players to be extraordinarily sensitive to such things: their antennae come quivering to attention at the first false note, a sense of unease ripens into suspicion…”

I can’t think of a better summary than this of the three or four deals that Bobby Wolff described in his recent postings. Once again, let me quote Alan Truscott: it is almost impossible to prove cheating from hand records. So yes, Cam, the fact that 95% of the bridge world (or probably more) didn’t know about these things isn’t surprising. You had to be at the table, and be a world-class player yourself, to realize what might be going on. Sontag’s final word on Reese-Schapiro, not having been there: “Do I know for sure that Reese and Schapiro were cheating? No. But do I think they were? Certainly.”

Finally, let me once again draw readers’ attention to Frank Vine’s piece, ‘The Curse of the Blue Team’, which satirizes some remarkable bids and plays made by Blue team members. I’m with Cam — I grew up in England, learning bridge from Reese’s books, travelling to Harrogate one weekend to watch my hero play in the Gold Cup Finals, and so on. It has taken me many years to become reconciled to the fact that Reese cheated in 1965 (whether or not they used the information is a weaselling technicality — finger signals are cheating and that’s the end of it), but IMHO no-one can read ‘The Great Bridge Scandal’ and come to any conclusion other than that R-S were cheating in Buenos Aires. And in fact, at least two of the top American pairs in the same era were known to be wired. Now it appears the Blue Team greats were tarred with the same brush. I’m saddened, but somehow unsurprised. Over the last 10-15 years, as I’ve spent more time world events and got to know many of the people who play the game at that level, my conclusion is that cheating in one form or another is, sadly, commonplace. Part of the reason for that is the unwillingness of authorities anywhere to pursue wrongdoers, but that in itself is partly due to the difficulty of proving one’s case.

Which is where we all began.

Without addressing the question of the truth of the charges Truscott made against members of the Blue Team in his book ‘The NY Times Bridge Book’, I would like to say that the author did his case no good at all with the deal quoted by Cam, where Schenken and Belladonna held, in 4th chair vul vs not:

A5

9

K10976

K10732

and had to find a call after 1S-pass-1NT.

Truscott called Belladonna’s choice of 2C (which found a big fit in partner’s hand) as ‘a decidedly odd decision’. I don’t see it that way at all. 2D (chosen by Schenken) is better from a perspective of preparedness, since you can later bid clubs and allow a preference at the same level, but overcalling 2C has the advantage that if you are doubled, you can try running to 2D. Both overcalls were reasonable; one worked very well, and the other didn’t. This deal would be evidence of improper knowledge only if presented as one of a very large body of deals, where the partnership in question guessed correctly more often than they should — something Truscott alleges but doesn’t prove. Admittedly, such a proof would be very difficult to offer, given the extent to which experts disagree about competitive actions.

“I communicated with (note, this does not mean I have them on speed dial or that we are close personal friends – hardly) the likes of Chip Martel, Bob Hamman, Bobby Wolff, Kit Woolsey, Mike Cappeletti, Zeke Jabbour, Ron Feldman, John Carruthers, Paul Soloway, Grant Baze, Fred Gitelman, Marty Bergen”

Cam, I find it interesting that each of these is an American. Burgay, if you desire to use him as an authority, is not a reliable source for a number of known reasons.

By the way, have you read Cathy Chua’s book on cheating? There is a very interesting article about the Manoppos that you might wish to look at.

Quote Ray:

“A few years later, Alan was playing in the final of the World Senior Bowl against a pair that had previously been suspended for cheating. He won the set something like 65-2, effectively ending the match. Afterwards he told me that before play began, he told his opponents exactly what he expected of them in terms of deportment; in particular, he itemized a number of actions he would not allow them to employ (including inconsistent placement of their cards on the table on defense, etc.). He had no doubt that this preamble had produced a level card table for the session — hence the score.”

Ray, IF this story is true, I think Sontag’s behaviour was disgusting and clearly a blatant attempt to intimidate the opponents – dare I say he cheated?. I would have called the Chief Tournament Director and had Sontag up before a commitee for unethical behaviour.

Sontag should clearly have made his concerns known to the TD and called the TD at the first infraction at the table. Are you sure this story is as you say it is?

BEAUTIFUL ARTICLE…nitpicking it will not change the clarity of your remarks…Thank you

You wrote:

“As an aftermath of the Burgay Tapes, Jimmy barred every member of the Italian Blue Team from ever appearing in another World Championship, although he relented for two particular Blue Team members in 1979 and again in 1983.”

I know I’m nitpicking, but the WBF website says Benito Garozzo played in these WBF events:

1978 5th WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS in New Orleans 1978 – Mixed Pairs 23rd with Lea DUPONT

1979 24th WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS in Rio De Janeiro 1979 – Open Teams 2nd ITALY

1980 6th WORLD TEAM OLYMPIAD in Valkenburg 1980 – Open Teams 11th for ITALY

1982 6th WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS in Biarritz 1982 – Open Teams 6th in team BARBONE

1983 26th WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS in Stockholm 1983 – Open Teams 2nd ITALY

1984 7th WORLD TEAM OLYMPIAD in Seattle 1984 – Open Teams 5th ITALY

1990 8th WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS in Geneva 1990 – Open Teams in Team 17th EISENBERG

1994 9th WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS in Albuquerque, NM 1994 – Open Teams 33rd ROSEN

1995 5th WORLD YOUTH TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP in Bali 1995 – Junior Teams 5th coach of ITALY

(well, official coach, not player, still has to be ratified by WBF)

1996 1st WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP in Rhodes 1996 – Mixed Teams in Team GAROZZO

1998 10th WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS in Lille 1998 – Senior Teams 4th ROSEN and Mixed Pairs 63rd with Lea DUPONT

2000 11th WORLD TEAM OLYMPIAD in Maastricht 2000 – Mixed Teams 15th EISENBERG

2002 11th WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS in Montreal 2002 – Open Teams 33rd ANGELINI and Open Pairs – Semifinal 86th with Lea DUPONT

2005 37th WORLD TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS in Estoril 2005 – Senior Teams 11th ITALY

2006 12th WORLD BRIDGE CHAMPIONSHIPS in Verona 2006 – Senior Teams 36th ROMANIN

and Benito Garozzo is on the current WBF Systems Committee, ref

http://www.worldbridge.org/administration/committees/cmte_info.asp.

Peter Gill

Australia.

Ron Lel — more nitpicking here, but I don’t think your statement about how each of them is an american is correct. One of the people named in that list used to live in Canada — I worked with him and I was at his house! I am pretty sure one of them is a canadian who is now batting for the other team.

Ray: I took pleasure in your Alan Sontag reference!

If, in fact, Alan Sontag did set the ground rules straight before the match, I tip my hat to him. Those of you on the outside looking in have no idea what some lowlifes would do for the thrill of beating a superior team. On the contrary — instead of being reprimanded as someone suggested, I believe Alan should have received a Medal of Honor. Whether the opponents had intentions of going into their dog and pony act at the time, we will never know. But Alan’s caution certainly served as a deterrent and it appears to have been a clean match.

He knew exactly what he was doing and I have no doubt that his admonition was timely and appropriate — since usually where there’s smoke — there’s fire.

Truscott details several cheating scandals including the famed Indonesian Manoppo brothers. In an analysis of 600 deals, 70 of which they were on lead and led from an ace or king. In each case they hit an ace or king in their partner’s hand. They were suspended for a long period and barred permanently from playing with one another.

THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH IN THE TEXT IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO 2 INTERPRETATIONS. ONE GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT ALL 70 TIMES THEY WERE ON LEAD THEY LEAD A KING OR ACE AND THEY HIT PARTNER WITH THE HOPED FOR CARD. THE OTHER INTERPRETATION IS THAT IN A SUBSET OF 70 DEALS, WHENEVER THEY LED FROM AN ACE OR KING, THEY FOUND THE HOPED FOR CARD. THIS COULD BE AS LITTLE AS ONCE. WHAT DID YOU INTEND TO MEAN?

I wish the reader would try to analyze the difference, and just as important, why, between Ron and Judy’s opinions concerning Alan Sontag’s behavior while playing against Lasut and Manoppo.

Judy thinks that all thought should be focused on competing while on a level playing field and leave the mental toughness required for the protection of the players, to themselves. Ron, instead, thinks that in one’s zeal to insist on fair playing conditions it is punishable intimidation to merely remind opponents (even if they have very questionable reputations) to “try and hold their cheating to a minimum” (meant as a joke). Again the battle lines between the two protagonists are quite accurately drawn. In Ron’s defense (and I mean this sincerely and not from a critical standpoint) since he has not had any experience (that I know of) of competing seriously and at very high levels it might be thought natural for him to take his view. On the other hand Judy has kibitzed many times when the competition and intensity could be said to be “off the charts”.

I side with Judy 100% (no surprise) and go so far as to think Ron’s position is nothing short of ridiculous.*

*Not at the social or perhaps even club level, but certainly at the championship level or the immediate levels below.

Fwiw I have played finals in top level national events – not international – and have frequently played behind screens. I guess it depends whether you think intimidation is a reasonable tactic. After all, we have tournament directors and committees to deal with inappropriate behaviour, (including cheating). Should a player have the right to set himself up as a policeman and intimidate opponents? I think not, and stand by my comments.

Ron:

It’s curious that your reaction to the Sontag indicent is to come charging to the defence of a pair that had been suspended for cheating.

Awkward fact that cheating bit, but to judge Sontag without making any reference whatsoever to the opponents status as apprehended cheats is to ignore the 8 ton elephant in the middle of the room.

It’s even more curious that you choose to interpret Alan Sontag’s pre-game discussion as being intended to somehow provide him with an untoward advantage over the other pair.

Let’s consider what it was that Alan was trying to…ummm…”intimidate” the opponents from doing. Oh yes. He was trying to discourage a pair of apprehended cheats from engaging in recidivism.

And yet the sole focus of your post is to consider Alan’s conduct as though this incident occurred in a vacuum against anonymous opponents of unknown character.

But it didn’t. It happened in the real world, against apprehended cheats.

And in the real world the bottom-line on how you judge Alan depends whether you think cheating is a reasonable tactic.

Ron,

Fine, stand behind your comments and lose. My guess is that while playing behind screens in your native Australia (or your neighbor NZ), you wouldn’t have much to worry about, possibly because I have not had to deal with any of your countrymen who were under any suspicion, nor have I heard about any other nefarious situations down under.

However, I have played in World Championships where the first round of the Round Robin, the USA (Aces) were paired up against a well-known Far Eastern country where after the 2d board at my table, I stopped play and asked for the director. He arrived and I requested a monitor to be present for the rest of the match (I think 16 total boards, but it well could have been 20). As the director was considering my request, one of my opponents called me away from the table and in very broken English said, “Please, a monitor is not necessary and you’ll have no more trouble from us”. I asked if that was a promise” and he said “Yes”! From that point till now and although my International bridge career is about over, it has been 35 years since then and I have played against them and other members of their family (probably over 200 boards) and he has kept his promise.

Your favorite bridge magazine, Australian Bridge once did a “watershed article” on two members of his family and along with Truscott’s great book added many mind boggling statistics, which I never read in detail, simply because I didn’t need to in order to be sure of what was going on.

If players, experienced or not in International Play, do not protect themselves, verily they will not be protected. Neither the WBF nor local TD’s are trained in what to look for in determining cheating. It, like any specialized law enforcement, needs special grooming to understand the workings and final conclusions on how to crack the whip and secure a case which will stand up to people like yourself who want to champion the poor underdog and probably would rather let 50 gullty players off scot free than God forbid challenge, let alone convict, one questionable pair.

I hesitate to suggest to you to get a copy of ” The Lone Wolff” and read it, simply because either your friend or possible soulmate Henk has proclaimed that book one of the worst of all time or somesuch. Catching cheaters in bridge is more than a full time job, even if one’s staff is very proficient. The best method is a ‘sting’ operation, but this is not the right place nor time to discuss such things.

If I ever would decide to do so, which is less than a 1% chance, I could write a longer book just about the above subject since over the course of years quite a number of guilty parties have fallen into the nets, but also to be fair, there have been several suspects who have eventually earned a clean slate.

Usually when there is “smoke” there is “fire”, especially by the time a case got to me. But I like to reminisce about my American court system finding a cold blooded double murderer “Not guilty” in order to satisfy the “race gods” and pay off our country’s debt to society.

Without beating this horse within an inch of its life, suffice it to say, If one does not take extra effort to protect himself, such as the aggressive display of Alan Sontag, he will later be found on the sidelines of the tournament after having become an ignominious loser.

Such is the state of the game I, and other kindred spirits, are trying to improve. During my long career there have been some positive strides, but there is a long way to go to get to the Emerald City. It would be helpful if others who feel the way I do, join the crusade.

Nick:

Your comment was like a breath of fresh air. It was brief, erudite and to the point. I, like you, don’t believe in dousing fires — but attempt to avoid their eruptions in the first place. Bobby never bothered to mention that the opponents Alan was facing have a long track record and they started their dog and pony act on the first two boards of a match against Bobby many years ago, causing them to do a “three-sixty” when he suggested a monitor.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed and Alan’s admonition to them was like a zookeeper trying to keep the animals in line before all hell breaks loose. It was far from intimidation. I consider it just getting the grounds rules straight!

Thanks for your input.

Judy

“I consider it just getting the grounds rules straight!”

I consider it cheating. TDs are here to enforce the rules, not vigilantees.

So Sontag was “cheating” because he asked apprehended cheats not to cheat.

Novel interpretation.

Yes, Ron.

Your copycat words “getting the grounds rules straight” is the perfect way you handle pairs suspected (or known) to cheat — before they get into gear. Obviously, they got the message loud and clear. If it were a respectable pair with no track record, there would have been no need to state the preamble and I guarantee nothing would have been said. However, in the case of Alan’s opponents — it was with due cause and prior knowledge. Perhaps his other choice was to request a monitor as he is entitled to play on a level playing field. That’s not too much to expect, is it?

As far as relying on the directors, it depends on who the director is, what event and how qualified he or she is. There are DIRECTORS and there are directors! Directors and appeals committees are hardly infallible and have made their share of mistakes. They are human. It shouldn’t have to come down to that.

You do know what they say about an ounce of prevention………

Requesting a monitor is fine; that is within the rules and I would support that action. Talking to the TD is fine.

Nick, is English your first language, because you do not seem able to comprehend what I am saying? : “Intimidation is NOT fine”. The above IS fine.

Ron:

It’s disappointing to see you now resort to ad hominem attacks.

This type of retort undermines the credibility of your position.

The question as to why you continue to perceive asking convicted cheats not to cheat as being blameworthy conduct remains unanswered.

Ron,

My very simple response, in support of Judy and Nick, and without regard to anything emotional or illusory is what must be very hard for you and yours to understand.

ANY DIRECTOR, MONITOR, OTHER TOURNAMENT OFFICIAL OR APPEALS COMMITTEE TO FOLLOW, WHO MAY BE CHOSEN, IS NOT ONLY NOT PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED TO DEAL WITH CHEATING, BUT WOULD BE RELUCTANT TO MAKE ANY RULING WHICH COULD BE TRACED BACK TO HIM OR THEM.

The rules in bridge have not been written to deal with anything worse than relative minor abuse of bridge proprieties and even with these, are vague. Cheaters are smooth and apparently ethical, but why shouldn’t they be, since they always know what their partners want them to do and able to perform vice versa.

For so many years, while trying to overcome this insidious problem, to my knowledge all the “good guys” have struck out and the miscreants continue to strive.

Again my book relates several appeals where the “bad guys” (Russia and Indonesia) had, who some would construe and then determine, “unfortunate, but the bad guys must win these appeals since our rules do not currently provide redress for these “clever” actions”. They would then suggest, from their ivory towers, that I should try and rewrite the rules, get them by the “power brokers” (most all Boards of Directors) who do not like any reference to “cheating” or even to “wilful self-serving” to be allowed and have them installed. Absolutely impossible advice, since, under the present conditions, and although from time to time I have been fortunate to contribute to installing a few minor deterrents, but alas nothing far enough reaching, which attacks the whole conundrum of first defining and then attacking the whole major process of evil doing.

Meanwhile the cheats rule wide and clear (witness the Blue Team, Reese and Schapiro and many more, some very American, who have not been included in this name calling). Ron—Judy and I (and I hope enough others, for example Cameron French and quiet crusader types of which Nick appears to be one of them are tired of waiting in the wings, but without help, are powerless to convince dreamy idealists who just hope it all goes away). With Alan Truscott, Jose Damiani, Denis Howard, Ray and Linda Lee, and other brave people as well as Jimmy Ortiz-Patino, now ready to join in, we have a chance and, although you may be very sincere in your “detente” beliefs and only help us in bringing the subject out into the open, but instead, your dogged determination to play by impossible to succeed laws puts paid to the whole process.

It is not that I think that “down deep” you and your cohorts mean wrong, it is just that in speaking up, you may cause some to think, “It is just not worth going through all this just to merely help a game others have left out in the rain to mildew”. Thank God for Cameron French, the Lees, Martha, Pimo and others mentioned who continue to show their aggressive love for our pastime.

We need help from whom we can gather and only hope that learning from our guarded history of the “poisoned flowers” and “wicked witches” encountered will only serve to make us all more determined. Rest assured that we speak only 100% truth of what has happened, although in most cases and over the past many years some of our memories (mine included) have dulled to forget what I think are minor details, the main thrust is only that “illicit despicable cheating has got to be eradicated from our game and for those who play by that creed, without which, we do not have a game worth playing”. Please help us in our quest.

To Ron:

You are like a broken record. The intimidation factor is only in the eyes of the beholder — which, in this case, is YOU. With your recalictrant DOG WITH A BONE attitude”, (which obviously you possess), you are encouraging cheating when you criticize the one trying to cut it off at the pass before it emerges. WHAT IS SAD IS THAT “the victim’s LESS THAN HONORABLE REPUTATION (based on past performance) NECESSITATED Alan’s remark. Your attitude is not necessarily protecting the innocent — but rather fostering improper action. Sometimes it

takes bold measures to right the ship — and their reputation earned the admonition.

To Nick:

I have never encountered you in the blogging arena. However, it is a pleasure to have such a prolific, sound thinker aboard who understands the nuances of the avoidance of cheating.

Thank you for speaking up.

Judy Kay-Wolff

If the pair involved with Sontag were Henky Lasut and Eddy Manoppo as Bobby Wolff claims I am not sure that they have been suspended for cheating.

Having read this blog and the original by JKW I am undecided about the guilt of the blue team. However I do not think it was JKW’s intention to convince any reader of the veracity of her accusation. I believe it was simply offloading many years of anger and hurt about a perception held for many years. This is supported by the departure from rational calm contribution to rude and heartfelt insults to anyone challenging her views.

Many people have argued for evidence of the accusation and nothing substantial has been offered, but neither has JKW or BW appeared to really wish to prove the case. Why should they? Perhaps their value system is not the same as those who question their views and proof comes secondary to collective suspicion and the support of others who have experienced the same feelings when playing against players they suspect of cheating. Some of the sources of evidence they offer should well be compelling reads and I will seek out each of them to determine for myself if the case is well supported.

Some have supported the idea of not looking to the past and looking at the present and future prevention of those who choose to use unethical methods to gain advantage and the expense of better players. I applaud that objective and have been involved in this activity, albeit at a far lower standard than that at which BW has played.

I cannot hope to understand the pressures of competing at that level, but at any level cheating is unacceptable and must be stamped out. It can be done, but requires a collective will to do so.

Phil:

I have not checked this site in a while and was not aware of your level-headed appraisal of the situation until today. Dead is dead … as they say. You cannot resurrect the losses from the ashes. When Jimmy Patino’s book, World Bridge History, hits the shelves (sometime soon we hear), according to our two-day meeting with Jimmy before The Lone Wolff went to press, he detailed the Burgay tapes, the actual meeting near some bridge or railway station and how he told the Blue Team not to bother appearing the following year as their credentials would not be accepted.

No one loves bridge more than the Godfather of World Bridge and he has no reason to fabricate such a story — as backed up by those who played against them. I cannot produce the CIA tapes. I am only repeating what Bobby and I heard directly from Jimmy Ortiz-Patino. There is also a significant amount of solid evidence, but rather than fragmenting the different episodes, we want to wait until Jimmy’s book has been released.

Perhaps the only way people could be convinced is if we could hold a seance and invite all the top American players of the fifties and sixties (and early seventies) who would sign sworn statements of how they were swindled in the world championships. Not a soul alive at that time who competed at the high levels was not aware of the situation. But like I said above, dead is dead. What DOES bother me is the deification of the “Exalted Blue Team” by many of the brainwashed, naive, starry-eyed worshippers who believe most of the current day Fourth Estate who refuse to accept the deserved crumbling of an old legend — fourteen straight world championships or not!!!!!!!!!!

I speak from the heart and memories as the fly on the wall, watching but not offering any comment as I was not qualified to judge the pathetic improprieties suffered by the U. S. Teams.

Phil, thanks for writing!

Judy

Hi there bridge-loving hotheads!

I’d like to give the discussion a somewhat calmer Scandinavian view. I’ve also read the other infamous (?) thread that was closed down.

During 50’s-70’s when the Blues seemed to get it right all time (except in Torino 1960) they always had a staunch defender in Swedish bridhe journalist Eric Jannersten, whose books you might have encountered (Precision Club etc). He was a top player in his own right representing Sweden in the EC in 1951 (I think). He dedicates a whole chapter in his memoirs (not available in English I guess: “Med bridge i bagaget”) to “cheating”, simply entitled “fusk och fusk” (= Cheating & Cheating).

My point is: Could a person (top player of sorts) who visited more than 40 straight ECs have been so totally dumb-founded by the Italians’ charms (which they apparently possessed), that he’d be blind for the cheating the Blues supposedly were engaged with?

Jimmy Ortiz-Patino is mentioned a lot. Soon (perhaps already) his book will have appeared. I wonder if the book contains the following hand, bid by himself & Jean Besse as far back as 1956, when the EC were held at Stockholm. The hand is thoroughly described in Harrison-Gray’s excellent book “Country life book bridge” p. 32, article “Talk of the tournament”. There are no names mentioned in Gray’s article but the hand was well-known at the time & duly dissected in the Bulletin. Here we go

(sorry, I dont know how to make diagrams, hopefully someone else could manage better):N dealer, Neither vuln; North (Patino) hand S void H KQJ7 D A84 C AK7643

South hand (Jean Besse)S T97 H A8432 D KT6 C 95. The bidding went:

1C – (No) – 1H – (1S); 3D – (No) – 3H – (No); 6H – (6S) – No – (No); D – (No) – 7H(??) All pass.

It seems that South took the right view at the right time: calling a lay-down grand. But what did really happen during the bidding? Let me cut directly from gra’s book:

“The same applies to case C (case above). As North you hold S void H KQJ7 D A84 C AK7643.

After One Club by you & One Heart by partner, you discover that he has at least a five-card suit, so you bid an inept Six Hearts without investigating grand slam possiblities. East – West make a sacrifice bid of Six Spades and South’s forcing Pass clearly says: “I might have the right hand for Seven; can you bid it?”. Of course you should bid it, in your sleep, but you shirk the responsibility. Why worry? A very slow double of Six Spades works just as well. South will then bid Seven Hearts if his hand is a bit better than it might be on the bidding.” In the articlewe learn that North thought for FIVE full minutes before doubling Six Spades & that South thought for THIRTEEN minutes before bidding Seven Hearts. Gray refers to this as “coffe-housing”. SO is the hand in Ortiz-Patino’s book (if it’s been published as of Nov 2010)?

Cheers

I think you have convinced me not by your evidence which is too scanty to be convincing but by the strength of your feeling that the Blue Team did cheat. You have also saddened me. I was accused of cheating on the first hand I ever bid in a tournament. I opened 1NT and hesitated after the “no”. The director was called but fortunately the accuser’s partner intervened to say “Dont be silly —-, that is a classic 1 NT opening”

zlata naložba avtomobili

It would be nice to see some of the American suspects, especially from the “Blue Team era”, actually named and not anonymously referred to.

i worry when i read the reactions to the mentioning of intimidation.
every one of us gets emotional reactions to accusations, whether these be true or not. confronting a pair who might or might not choose to cheat against you just before the event must lead to high emotional tensions in both parties, but certainly most so in the accused.
the effects of upheaval will diminish the accuseds’ ability to play bridge, at least for this one session. probably the whole tournament.
that the session is won by accuser and partner does not prove a thing.
i agree that Sontag’s intervention before the match was unethical, and slurs himself and worse, his partner by inference.

i am also disturbed by the fact that examples of possible cheating are not chosen from ALL the matches in a particular tournament. the more select the examples, the less i trust the stated opinion.
after all, the italian team, in this case, played against rather more national teams than the american. the pressure of winning must be assumed to be great throughout if a place in the finals is the goal.

observers: an observer chosen should be left to his/her job, telling an observer what to look for is to destroy his/her neutrality, and greatly diminishes the weight of presumed evidence.

smoke from fire is used a lot in this thread, and in the older one. the metaphor does not really cover human psychology, there are so very many smoldering fires about. i suggest that a chemist might find several ways to make smoke, quite without making a fire.

names: why not produce a list of every player alluded to above ? who protects whom ? who accuses whom ?
i found the list of garozzo’s attendances of interest, it weakens somewhat the arguments and/or presumed facts to be listed by Ortiz-Patino.

next to last: one million votes do not make ‘x’ true. even very qualified persons may show group behaviour. very few private persons are in a position to follow up accusations until they are ready for a court case. what an opponent tells me is not necessarily true. that reese left word behind him without substantiated written evidence is difficult to believe. whatever he was, he was rather precise, as far as i know.

last i will mention that you will not find me among the good players. i play reasonably well at club level, and do not aspire to more.
even so, i would like to see even-handedness applied at the top level. i would like to have people to look up to when it comes to the game.

Belladonna bid 2C which in Truscott’s words “a decidedly odd decision. Two diamonds would allow for the possibility of introducing clubs later. Two clubs may have been a lucky guess, but it fitted West’s {his partner’s} hand. The Italians had a habit of making lucky guesses.”

well not a very good example. As if GB had the info about clubs why show his hand at the start and start tongues wagging? he would have bid D with alacrity knowing that it would be “very safe” to introduce clubs even at the 5 level.

Daftar Situs Judi Online Terbaik in Dalam negri
Situsalternatif are a collection of lists of the greatest online gambling internet sites from all popular bookies / brokers in Indonesia.
Home elevators online gambling internet sites listed on this specific page is obviously
transforming, because we simply provide sites that will
get good testimonials. Each site gives some informative
concerning the games accessible, deposit transaction alternatives, and
alternative links.

Collection of Situs Alternatif and Daftar Judi Online Terbaik
Playing on gambling sites is not completely smooth, one of the problems frequently experienced by players will be difficulty accessing the particular site where to
enjoy due to web site blocking. Therefore, the choice Site collects option links
here which often are extremely useful to be able to help gamblers to be
able to easily login plus daftar taruhan online. In addition, you avoid need to be worried about the link jalan keluar judi that we provide,
needless to say an individual can access this easily and with regard to free.