Cam,

After reading your blog, I want to say that I think you are about as right as a person can be and for all intelligent reasons. You not only are right in your conclusions, but also on target about all the myriad psychological influences.

All I can add is a few things to think about:

1. When one has thought about it, discussed it, wants to address it, and feels it deeply, but never individually experienced it, he is perhaps 95% qualified to write about it, but he has to go the extra 5% to, if for no other reason than to know all there is to know. With that extra 5% he would understand, especially (if he possessed the competitive instinct of a bridge warrior) to not tolerate being cheated. With that, goes the unmistakable knowledge and horror of having to sit there and realize, like possibly the blacks did in my beloved country the first half of the 20th century and the Jews did during the reign of Nazi Germany during the Holocaust, that there is no one to turn to for help. All available have had their bodies snatched for whatever reasons, and the reasons, at least in their thinking, are many. I feel I need to give this disclaimer since realistically I am not comparing the absolute abomination which those 2 above world events caused, compared to the much less important matter of bridge, but I guess I wanted to try and indicate my personal passion for our game.

When writing my blog about Alan Sontag, I first described his actions at the table as “vulgar display”, but then thought better about it, since I realized his, realistically and especially in his own mind, lack of options. I do not love Alan Sontag more for what he did, but rather love the powers that be less for putting me, him, and so many others in such an untenable position and all for their own off the charts, cowardly and selfish reasons.

2. It is time that we follow Cam’s heartfelt feelings to require our leaders to come forth and lead. Not just lip service to let “George do it” but real leadership with strong law enforcement including enough money to finance deterrents, proper training from some of the very few who know what to do, and strict laws which may, if we do it right, make if very difficult for anyone to succeed if he still attempts it.

3. The IBPA should take a leadership role in this sordid subject. If they are aware of what they should be aware, almost every nationality has indulged in this horrible chicanery at one time or another. Until they, and other visible bridge entities do much more than they have done. We are effectively born dead and never will succeed.

4. It is high time that bridge lovers, whether leaders or even wimps, come forward and demand action which obviously covers making our past history, transparent for all to see, even for the ones who have clouded vision and are almost impossible to convince.

Thank you Cam, and leave it up to a bridge lover like you, not a super world class player, to lead the way.

Bobby

Cam: Your dissertation was from the heart — but it is obvious you are overlooking some major issues:

1. We are lacking leadership, at least here in the USA. The average ability of the Board of Directors, is far from expert and they are not equipped to deal with the problems at hand. The Silodors, Kaplans. Sanders and Murrays are gone from the Board and few knowledgeable, fair-minded people are capable of rising to the occasion. There have been known cheats on the Board — but that is neither here nor there.

2. To chair a Committee is not necessarily an indication of expertise (although in some cases it may be) — but is usually a popularity contest and represents the old “I’ll scratch your back and you scratch mine” concept known as the old Spoils System. Similarly, wearing a badge that says Director does not necessarily qualify one to handle these delicate situations.

3. You mention some great names who may be super in the field of legitimately helping police the sport. BUT — try getting them to commit! We’ve been there — done that. Bobby has spoken to many top level, certainly qualified, players who would be perfect for the job begging them to pick up the gauntlet — but NOBODY wants to get involved and spend the time or risk other people’s wrath, like some of the bloggers who have identified themselves.

4. So, those who are qualified want no parts of the task and those who would be willing — are not only not necessarily qualified, but also have the wrong attitude. Getting the ideal system in place is wonderful — but much easier said than done.

5. Because professionalism has taken over the game (and most top players, of necessity, are beholden to their sponsors), it may become a sticky subject for them to get involved. What can they gain? Rather, they would have a lot to lose in the way of sponsors and other professionals who are possible teammates who do not show the way with superior ethical reputations.

6. About Alan Sontag, perhaps because he had no guaranteed recourse and protection (and certainly the administrators way back then were far from ideal judges), he did what he thought he had to do. He tried to save his own hide before it was put in a sling — considering it “any port in a storm.” It is sad that those poor “intimidated victims” whom everyone knew were not ‘kosher’ were not banished earlier — and even to this day (thirty+ years later) are still on the scene. Shame! Shame!

You are pursuing the impossible dream. Good luck!

I am sure there is no love lost as Sontag (and Weischel) were involved in your much publicized pet peeve (The Norfolk Incident) which should have no bearing on the case at hand, but I am sure it is still gnawing at you, so I do not think you are totally impartial regarding Sontag.

Riki,

You got it all wrong. No gnawing – not true (for me at least) about no love lost. Invited them both to my 25th wedding anniversary party on Marcos Island.

We agree to disagree about Norfolk. I think he should give up an unlawfully won title, he thinks having cheating partners at the other table does not diminsh the integrity of the title and that he should keep it.

I wonder why, with all his fabulous accomplishments – he doesn’t toss this one back.

Ask him, not me. Let us all know what he says.

C

“Such remarks constitute intimidation, plain and simple.”

Totally agree Cam. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. Leave it up to the authorities to deal with and don’t act like a vigilante. Just one minor point, I am surprised that Bobby, who is a proponent of active ethics, would support this bullying. I would have had Sontag up before the TD so fast his ears would have sung.

By the way, I have played against Henky Lasut a few times in the South West Pacific Teams and have never witnessed any untoward behaviour.

“The authorities,” you say? Authorities, acccording to whose standards? What deems them to be authorities and just how qualified are they to handle potential cheating? They may be fine quoting chapter and verse from the Rule Book, but adeptly handling potential cheating is a horse of another color.

If you want to know what intimidation is, I can tell you a story close to home. In the mid seventies, my late husband’s team was facing Bobby’s team in some major event. Johnny Crawford asked Norman (who was sitting off that session) to kibitz Bobby to make him nervous (he didn’t know Bobby too well). Norman was appalled and of course declined to be part of Crawford’s attempt at intimidation. I heard that story thirty-some years ago from Norman and was reminded of it tonight by Bobby.

With all due respect, I dare say Bobby has a bit more experience at handling these situations — probably more than anyone in the bridge world and over a longer period of time. He is familiar with more dossiers on cheaters and Recorder Slips than you can shake a stick at. Bobby feels if you anticipate an about-to-arise siutation, it is better to confront the individual tactfully (one on one) making one’s feelings clear than wait until an incident develops and have to be dependent upon a random director who is not capable or skilled coping with the anticipated situation. Handling cheating is an art and few directors (especially in those days) were trained and qualified. Alan made his point and avoided the anticipated shenanigans which were bound to take place.

It happened against Bobby and after two boards against the same countrymen, a monitor was suggested — so why should Alan expect anything different from individuals who had track records. Alan might not be your favorite person — but be assured he wasn’t born yesterday! Besides, if you are honest players, why would you be intimidated by something you would pass off as idle chatter?

Wake up and smell the roses — or perhaps lilies is a more appropriate aroma in this instance.

I’m pretty sure that one of the players in the pair who opposed Sontag has never been convicted of nor apprehended for anything untoward, although his partner has. Cam, so the pair in question is merely suspected, not convicted. At one time, I thought I had played more boards against this pair in international bridge than anyone else in the world, mainly at Far East and Pacific Asia events, so I am not exactly an outsider with no knowledge.

The main reason Sontag’s team won the 16 board session 62-2 imps is that Rose Meltzer and Grant Baze had a huge session at the other table. It’s all there on the internet, for anyone to see, under Shanghai in 2007. If Meltzer – Baze score up with Jill Levin – Jill Meyers from the Women’s Final, they win the segment 68-9. If Meltzer – Baze score up with Helness – Helgemo from the Open Final, they win the set 71-10. If Meltzer – Baze score up with Wang Wenfei – Yi Qian Lu from the Women’s 3rd place playoff, they win the set 65-2. It is not as if Sontag at the other table to Rose Meltzer had a particularly good set after his comment.

At the start of an all-European match in Beijing last year, a player made similar remarks to their opponents, along the lines of: “I will not tolerate any of your antics; and will not hesitate to call the Director if you do anything shifty.” The match passed without incident. I think the comment was OK.

I have just been re-reading various write-ups of the Appeal in which Judy was the victim. Google has put parts of The Lone Wolff online, which made this easier to look up. Being so badly treated there should have the effect of making Judy look unfavourably on bridge administration in general. In my opinion, the Directing staff and AC volunteers in Shanghai are more capable than is suggested in the comments above.

The authorities (Directors) in question in Shanghai were: Max Bavin (England), Richard Grenside (Australia), Antonio Riccardi (Italy), Anthony Ching (HK), Bernard Gignoux, Rui Marques (Portugal), Jeanne van den Meiracker (Nethlds) and Matt Smith (USA), very different from what you get in the ACBL. The Appeals Committee was people like Bobby Wolff, Dan Morse and a few others. I disagree with Judy’s suggestion above that these people are unsuitable for handling potential cheating. They were the people to whom Sontag could have left the decision-making.

Peter Gill

regular member of Australia’s Open Team.

Agree with Peter,

Henky has always been a gentleman at the table. So has Eddy for that matter. By the way, there ae a number of explanations for the Manoppo Brothers’ leads and not all fo them have to do with cheating. Not everyone agrees with the article by Ron Klinger, referred to by Bobby, “Eenie Meenie, Miney Manoppo.”

To Peter:

I was under the misapprehension that the quote from Ray Lee about Sontag happened some thirty years ago and for that I apologize. All my assumptions were based on that! It certainly changes the complexion of the scene — with competent, trained WBF directors. No doubt that cast (with Max Bavin at the helm) was more than competent. However, perhaps a few decades ago, I would have had little faith in their ability to handle similar situations. As far as Bobby being on that particular Appeals Committee is untrue. Bobby for several years now has not served on or headed Appeals Committees because his hearing has gotten so bad.

I am sure everyone has either praise or tales of woe concerning the suspected talked-about violators. Peter seems to think they are as pure as the driven snow. Why then, regardless of the clean slates that are being offered in their defense, did Bobby (after funny stuff on two hands against him) suggest a monitor (for which they apologized and guaranteed it woud be smooth sailing from then on). Nothing beats first hand experience. Seeing is believing.

And, by the way, where there’s smoke there’s fire so in my mind there is little difference between suspicion and conviction. When there is a great deal of conjecture, it is usually not a figment of everyone’s imagination. This is true in the old days, when fear of scandal prevented individuals from taking action or the authority’s refusal to recognize what was actually happening. Today, much more is being done (cameras, monitors, etc.) to clean up the game and thank god for that much.

To All,

Internet communications have made the world wonderful. Internet communications have made the world dangerous and ripe for misunderstandings. These two conflicting statements are probably both true and it is important to realize the good and the awful.

When I talk about the general abilities and effectiveness of bridge tournament directors in both the WBF and the ACBL I have no choice, but to talk about generalities. In truth, I am sure that in the ACBL and particularly the WBF there are potential leaders and very knowledgeable TD’s and members of the staff. However, because of the careful instruction from on top, that alone would result in very little wiggle room, if any, for any of the TD’s or even chief TD for that matter to emerge showing great leadership. In the beginning, chief TD’s like Al Sobel, Harold Franklin and some others, whose names I never knew (from around the world), exerted their intelligence and force of personality to right wrongs, discourage cheating, and subjectively make the game better and less crooked. In our present setup there is probably either no room or certainly less room for the present TD leadership to exert itself. Having said that and assuming my description is reasonably accurate, potential TD blame becomes non-existent. For that misunderstanding, I sincerely apologize to the current TD leadership.

Since internet blogging is only a sometime thing, everything that needs to be said, and there is so much, no one will ever begin to believe it, will never cover all the bases, leaving some victims moaning their plights.

I generally agree with Peter Gill’s recent blogs with a couple of housekeeping objections.

1. Even though I was thrilled to be named Chairman Emeritus of the WBF Appeals Committee by the generous WBF Executive Committee at the recent Sao Paulo tournament I should explain that because of my almost total lack of hearing (90% deaf) I no longer will be able to serve what I thoroughly enjoyed doing in the past.

2. Until some aggressive, independent knowledgeable soul emerges from the ash (and there are several prospects) the WBF will be treading water, still overly fearfull of law suits, not wanting to be so subjective in determining investigations as to risk possible hurt feelings if, in fact, nothing sinister can be proven we, in my opinion, will never get there from here.

3. While your statistics were interesting concerning Sontag’s probable not special winning session following his suspected intimidation before his session started, it really, at least to me, is not the real topic, since whether the intimidation worked or not, the subject was whether he or anyone should ever do such a thing. Truthfully I would never have expected an experienced pair like Henky and Eddy to ever be subject to anyone trying to intimidate them.

4. Cheating (whether proven, merely possible or even likely) is in itself a blight on our whole game, and whether some like Ron or Anon who do not want to believe it, is not like the tooth fairy, and does exist. Furthermore, it exists right here in River City and in No Trump. To cast the popular finger against it ever happening plus the Australian article by Ron Klinger about the known subjects was so well done and so explicit that anyone who doesn’t believe at least most of it, should turn in his believing in the infallibility of human nature bridge badge, at the first available desk.

5. I agree with your somewhat veiled suggestion that Alan Sontag’s diatribe is OK if done at the right time and for the right reason, not to secure advantage, but to protect oneself against their opponents violently (if you will) taking their own advantage.

6. Ron, being a bleeding heart is a lovable quality, but, at least to me, you and your cohorts have carried it past its welcome. However, I would like to keep you available to call on to cheer me up, when I later go off my rocker and murder a few people, or worse, cheat them at bridge.