Baby – You Can Leave Your Hat On

April 26th, 2011 ~ Cam French ~ 6 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

Uncategorized

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

Uncategorized

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

Uncategorized

The Big Leagues

February 13th, 2011 ~ Cam French ~ 2 Comments

Tom Cochrane – Big Leagues

Dealer:N Vul:None	North ♠ AJ98542 ♥ K32 ♦ 3 ♣ 32
West ♠ KQ ♥ AQ84 ♦ AQ74 ♣ A107		East ♠ 10763 ♥ 106 ♦108652 ♣ 95
	South ♠ – ♥ J975 ♦ KJ9 ♣ KQJ864

West	North	East	South
—	2S	Pass	Pass
Dble	Pass	3D	Pass
3NT	Pass	Pass	Dble (all pass)

This was a battle for the North American Teams back in the day featuring well renown personalities.

What should North lead? Of course the contract is terrible, even a diamond lead results in two down. Our North was listening closely and following his well-honed instincts – he led a club. Poor West, desperate for tricks he played ace and a diamond and soon found himself squeezed on the run of the clubs. This resulted in down 6 for -1100, live viewing on Bridge-O-Rama!

South, savouring the moment picked up West’s cards, fanned them across the table saying “Imagine taking only three tricks with a hand like that!” Nothing like sticking the knife in and twisting it a few times. EW “sufferred in silence.”

Now before we all get our knickers in a knot and call the politically correct police bear in mind these are peers, not sure they were close friends but certainly respectful of one another. Surely we have all done something similar and/or had the salt poured in the wound with a verbal barb by a friend or friendly competitor. I doubt anyone took offence and the cajoling (certainly back then, while perhaps less so today) is part of the game we love.

This is another tidbit from Roy Hughes’ superb book, Canada’s Bridge Warriors. EW were Murray and Kehela. North was Alvin Roth and South Tobias Stone. I trust that the competitors and the readers can see the humour and enjoy the hand and the dialogue. Stone, never known for being “kindler, gentler” was in full bloom on this one. I will wager he regrests not one word – nor should he.

Uncategorized

Whole lotta Shakin’ Goin’ on

February 7th, 2011 ~ Cam French ~ 5 Comments

Jerry Lee Lewis – 50’s – Whole Lotta Shakin’ Goin’ On

Click on the link for musical accompaniment.

No doubt humour, like art and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Here we see it from Eric Murray’s perspective as he himself explains.

Once again I shamelessly harvest from Canada’s Bridge Warriors by Roy Hughes. If you don’t have it – grab it. Call Ray, tell him I sent you and get my blogger discount. You will have to call him to see how much it is – you won’t believe it!

ERM recalled a hand when bidding boxes were first introduced at tournaments. It made its debut in New Orleans (possibly 2003 but not specified by the author) when Eric faced this wonderful situation.

Holding: 653 J765 107643 7

It went three passes to him!

Eric’s words:

It was clear to me that one of those green pass cards was an error. I peered over the tops of my cards at my opponents but neither of them seemed unduly concerned and I could see beads of perspiration forming on Sami’s brow, so I thought I would think about this for a while. (we call that torture, CF) I started to study my cards and a waterfall was pouring onto the table. Finally I shook my head and said “Oh, I’m not going to open this – I don’t have the majors,” and put my hand back in the pocket. (driving in the stake CF) Sami cried “I have nineteen points!” to which I responded “why would you pass with nineteen points?” Sami exploded across the table to grab my cards. But I wouldn’t let him have

Uncategorized

Collateral Damage Epilogue 1

January 24th, 2011 ~ Cam French ~ 11 Comments

01 Please Release me

Bobby Wolff wrote:

“Let the record show that I think the winners of that ill fated tournament in Norfolk, 1979 should be forever erased and excluded from recognition.”

(for the unenlightened that would be Sternberg, Sontag, Weichsel, and two convicted cheaters Cokin/Sion stripped of an unlawfully won title)

(new readers see Collateral Damage at http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/?p=9 )

Dear Bobby,

Wonderful words.

A treat to see for many while an embarrassment for a precious few, as well it should be.

Wish we had heard them earlier and certainly in greater numbers but great to hear them nonetheless. Thank you. I wish more had your cajones to say the same. Precious and few are those who dare to speak out. My guess is that as a victim of cheating, you have stronger feelings about it than many. I could be wrong. But I haven’t seen any movement, action or calling from within or without to echo your words and my sentiment that the unlawful winners of 3/79 be stripped of the title. Even worse, the unlawful winners cling to their ill-gotten gains like barnacles to the side of a ship.

Why is that?

And let’s be frank, Alan Sontag and Peter Weichsel are superstars in bridge with an otherwise unblemished record of accomplishment so few are those who want to alienate two elite players. No one blames those stand in silence and fewer still are surprised at the lack of inertia on the part of the league.

Friends of theirs have been very vocal in response to Collateral Damage in private and some in public. Rose Meltzer called me “sick” (on OKB) for daring to write about her beloved Sonty. Imagine that I am “sick” because I dare to criticize one of the game’s great players by asking him to renounce an unlawfully won title. Another “flashy” expert player told me he would have me booted from the ACBL, OKBridge, BBO and everywhere else as some of his pro dates had withered because of me, and he wasn’t even on the team! I will tell Rose this – should Sonty stand up and say, “I want nothing to do with the title of 3/79” I will be the first to say – Congratulations. And thank you for taking the high road. Somehow, I don’t expect I will have the chance to say those words. I hope I am wrong. Release me.

None of us enjoy Survivor’s immunity from criticism in life or in this game. It comes with the territory. And you know and I know, the kibitzer knows and my mother knows that if Phillip Alder, Barry Rigal, Michael Rosenberg or Eddie Kantar wrote Collateral Damage, the venom directed at the author would be a lot less toxic. Let’s shoot the messenger?

How about a couple of our game’s greatest players step up to the plate do the right thing? Is that a novel, old-fashioned, revolutionary or simply bold thing to ask? You tell me.

The truth is sad and sordid as the league has no reason to drag the skeletons out of the closet; and in fact plenty of reasons to hide them. We get that. And why should they come clean? As Cokin said to me through a third party – “there is no upside” and he was right. Looking back as Bobby noted is “too painful” and he too was right because you have League officials conspiring to deny a title to the lawful winner thereby embracing the unlawful one. Going back there to disinter those skeletons is not an option. Too painful indeed. I (and certainly Zeke/Capp and team mates) have no interest in pouring salt in the wound. Losing a National title to cheaters is painful enough, let’s as Zeke told me – move on past the pain and blame.

Perhaps there is a way to look back and not drag the league by the ankles through the briars; minimize the embarrassment, look at healing versus apportioning the blame. If we leave the lies, the anger and the blame behind, could we do the right thing? We should or could be looking at setting the record straight. Of course Norfolk is but one in the crowded field who qualifies for a look back, just ask Bobby about all those Blue Team victories. But Norfolk has the virtue of an iron-clad case, expert eyewitnesses, documented evidence and signed confessions. Sadly the surviving Blue Team members (like the Sternberg team) prefer silence and denial versus coming clean. Model it on Nelson’s Healing Commission and look forward while addressing the past and leave the blame behind.

And let’s not let the league off without a challenge. I ask my representative Paul Janicki to explore options. Without assigning blame, can we look back and say, this time we made a mistake and we want to address that?

Let’s call a spade a spade. What is the downside? Does Dr. Sternberg want his bonus money back? He should recoup it from the cheating pair for sure, but what is there to recoup? The trophy sits atop his mantlepiece so why ruin a good thing? The easiest way, certainly taking the league off the hook would be for Cokin, Sternberg, Sontag and Weichsel (or some combination thereof) to step up and say, “this title was unlawfully won and we want nothing to do with it.

“Why not do that? I just don’t get it. Enlighten us.

Why would anyone cling to an unlawfully won title? Throwing it back is not a sign of guilt, but rather an act of courage, of leadership, of ethics. And I know, from private correspondence that both Sontag and Weichsel share all of those attibutes. I understand Cokin has become a coach of standing and respect.

Please release me let me go; as I don’t love you anymore

To live our lives would be a sin; release me and let me – love again.

The time has come. Let”s heal.

Release me, release yourselves and let us love again.

C

Uncategorized

It’s Not Unusual (though some think it is)

January 16th, 2011 ~ Cam French ~ 26 Comments

Tom Jones – It’s Not Unusual

Bobby’s comment was perfect.

Exactly what I expected.

He speaks as a bridge player, administrator and jurist, as well he should. He has walked the walk.

As in:

At least to me, if justice is to be served, it totally depends on:

1. The conditions of contest

2. The type of event used to determine the placing

3. Whether or not the competitors were playing any sort of a perfect movement (e.g., a round robin where every contestant played every other one) with no overlaps or other deviation

4. The specific irregularity which caused the problem and whether that irregularity caused the intended movement to become skewed

Let’s think outside the bidding box for just a moment. (As an aside- if we want bridge to be an Olympic sport (and some do) then we will have to adapt (like drug testing) to their rules. Their rules require a gold/silver/bronze medalist for every event.

Every sport can point to its uniqueness, no one will ever claim they are like all the others. Bobby speaks from the heart, and that is OK. We expect nothing less. That said I think he misses the bigger picture.

If Michelle Wei touches the hazard before blasting out, and fails to record it, she will be disqualified and another competitor, perhaps with a far inferior score advances to the podium. Perfect? Hardly, but there is a winner.

I noted previously (in CD) if Jeff Gordon is winning a NASCAR race and is bumped and crashes, someone will still win. Using the bridge logic, because Gordon was rammed, and the other competitors were not, any victory is tainted through the bumping. Note NASCAR (nor the LPGA) does NOT say well Jeff or Michelle might have won, or others won unfairly so we have no victor. In fact it is the opposite; all events deserve a winner, even if they won through fortuitous or unfortunate circumstances. That is the nature of the beast of competition. The objective of a competition is to determine a winner. To deny a winner defiles the event. Everyone loses except the cheaters who have tarnished it for all. Congratulation law makers. Is that the legacy we want?

One thing defines sport and competition, and that is the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. Just ask Robert Lipitz, Eric Murray, Sami Kehela, Edgar, Norman, Gerber, Stoney, Grant, George Mittleman, Bobby Wolff, Bob Hamman, and the beat goes on. All of the “conditions” Bobby mentions are valid in a bridge sense, but in a sporting sense, moot. OK, irrelevant.

If there cannot be a winner, then the cheaters win. How is that for justice?

Do we really imagine that our game is so totally different from every other that it can have championships without winners? There should be a winner, albeit an imperfect one as perfection is no longer attainable. I think bridge administrators have lost sight of that. They don’t see it through a sporting perspective; they are trying to put the genie back in the bottle when sadly she is already long gone. They see the uniqueness of our game and seek a utopian solution available only under the most stringent circumstances. If they want to be Olympians, better change that perspective.

And while I am (just for you Judy) flogging the dead horse, I might note that Zeke and company met every one of Bobby’s conditions, including the fact that Sion and Cokin cheated against them (a normal result would have led to Zeke’s victory as the margin of victory was less than one full board) and they filed a timely appeal. So even if one meets or supersedes all the criteria (as laid out by Bobby) that does not necessarily lead to justice let alone victory. We can cite the case. All we have is five expert eyewitnesses; a broken code, documented evidence and signed confessions. Somehow, that is insufficient. I could live with the fact that Zeke and team mates are not recognized as the rightful winners. But please explain that to me how confessed cheaters and their team mates) retain their unlawful and ill-gotten gains from Norfolk. That concept eludes me, I must be missing something.

(new readers see Collateral Damage at http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/?p=9 )

What could possibly be sufficient?

The truth is bridge is an unusual game of intellect (like chess) where the physical aspects like being a better quarterback or shortstop are not in play. But every sport demands winners, punishes cheaters and nothing less is acceptable. Except for bridge?

Why do bridge administrators imagine that winless = the best possible solution.? No one else does. Maybe it is time to recognize bridge is just not that unusual. Compare it to skiing, backgammon, synchronized swimming or tiddly-winks. They are unique too. The time has come to admit we made a mistake by allowing cheaters to steal an event and rejoin the rest of the sporting community in celebrating versus denying victory. And while we’re at it, let’s get severe with cheaters.

It is not unusual to celebrate victory, nor should it be. Perhaps I should have used Celebrate from Three Dog Night. 🙂

C

Uncategorized

Gotta Serve Somebody

January 12th, 2011 ~ Cam French ~ 4 Comments

Bob Dylan – Gotta Serve Somebody

Maybe bridge needs to revamp the rules or at least the way we look at bridge “justice”.

Every year in golf, an ethical game where a player is expected to call a penalty upon him/herself a viewer calls in to report a transgression.

Michelle Wei faced this, and was disqualified.

A more recent example was

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-16/dustin-johnson-s-pga-bunker-gaffe-costs-him-second-chance-at-major-title.html

Is bridge not in a like class as an ethical game?

And yet in our game third party intervention (like the Swedish NPC in the Zia case), negates any penalty.

So in golf, a spectator can call attention to an irregularity and it is as though a referee caught it. In bridge, it it the opposite. Which system works better?

I don’t know but I do know, as do we all that the proverbial “justice” is at risk when irregularities slide through as though nothing ever happened. Many readers have commented with like messages – why can’t we do the right thing?

I wish I knew the answer. Of course, our game is one of a kind – that is the blarney we are all supposed to buy. A little snake oil, served up to whose end?

For example that justifies the rule whereby if you are cheated out of first place in an event, second/third/fourth do not advance (like the Olympics and other sports for example) in rank. Name another sport where this is the case. Oh, I forgot, bridge is the unicorn, unique and one of a kind where we have all these rules that no other sport would contemplate much less allow.

Perhaps we need to look at our justice system in a whole new light. In our system, transgressors are rewarded, too often go unpunished and victims are collateral damage, acceptable losses to the overall good.

Just whose overall good does this system of justice serve?

C

Of course I know (having been down this road before) that Bobby Wolff and my good friend David Turner (and many others) endorse this “failure to advance” policy. I guess I just wonder why or even if we are one of a kind? Who says so and why? Perhaps we should look at other models to see how and if we can improve upon our dispensation of justice. This one is broken, can’t we do better? Ask the Swedes how they feel from Stockholm or the Canadians in Geneva. George Mittleman told me (and this was the case) that the Germans hiding behind the scoring error probably cost him a world championship. How would anyone feel by losing such a title under such circumstances? it is an affront to the game that such injustices should go unrecognized. Something is rotten and it isn’t in Denmark or Sweden, it is in Memphis or wherever the new ACBL home may be.

Uncategorized

To Sir With Love

January 3rd, 2011 ~ Cam French ~ 8 Comments

Oldies – Lulu – To Sir With Love

I asked Peggy for permission to reprint her tribute. She readily agreed.

Farewell to Grant Baze

By: Peggy Kaplan

Michael Whitman and Tipton Golias, longtime partners and dear friends of Grant Baze, gathered a large contingent of partners, teammates and friends at the Spring 2009 NABC in Houston on Friday, March 13th, to say goodbye to a towering presence (literally!) in the bridge world. Chris and Donna Compton organized a warm and wonderful evening of memories, food and drink as the best and the brightest gave testimony to this one-of-a-kind player.

Tipton Golias, who won the 1997 Spingold with Grant and Poles Adam Zmudzinski, Marek Szymanowski, Marcin Lesniewski, Cezary Balicki, recalled Grant’s high standard of ethics. Reviewing Tipton’s declarer play on a hand, Grant realized that their score was in error. Finding a director, Grant had the score changed from making to down one – sending Grant and Tipton from first to sixth. Winning would be meaningless if it weren’t fairly earned.

Partner Gary Hayden marveled at Grant’s deep knowledge of history – and his ability to multi-task with ferocity. Alan Sontag, the only bridge player who might have played as rapidly as Grant did, recounted how their lightening speed saved the day. When only three players out of six showed up for a session of the Senior Bowl in 2001, the team worried they might be eliminated. No problem, when the world’s two quickest players paired up. Ultimately, Grant and Alan, along with Roger Bates, Bart Bramley, Rose Meltzer, and Lew Stansby captured their international title.

Other speakers, Mike Passell, Bob Hamman, Eric Rodwell, Alan Cokin, Gary Cohler, Peter Weichsel, Gary Cohler, Fred Gitelman and George Jacobs also spoke of Grant’s tremendous abilities, his creativity, his humor and infectious, booming laugh. They spoke of how Grant played through severe pain and fatigue, all because of his adoration of the game.

For those who knew Grant, it would be impossible not to have mention of his attachment to the ladies. Women loved Grant – and he loved them back. Indeed, Grant was such a ladies’ man; he put together a collection of at least nine wives! (Forgive me if I fail to get the final tally accurately; it was always a moving target.) Grant’s “last and best” wife, Cindy, listened good naturedly as tales of Grant and his many women were recounted.

Grant loved bridge, women, history and his friends with a passion. He gave them his all – and he will be sorely missed.

___________________________________________________________________

I will state up front that there is a fee you have to pay before further exploring this, and that it is not money. Read on at your peril unless you plan to stiff me. And no doubt some of you will…….

I have a confession.

Grant was one of the experts who contributed candidly and generously to Collateral Damage. He did not dispence platitues, he offerred insight, opinion and wisdom. For that I owe him a debt of gratitude. For the unenlightened please see:

http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/?p=9

It was obvious he was appalled at the state of the union in Memphis with regards to cheating. He was perplexed at the failure of leadership to ever come to grips with this issue. I suspect that motivated him to be so forthcoming. Here was here is someone talking about it, writing about it and maybe (not bloody likely but maybe) something positive will emerge. So why not add to the discussion.

He certainly had no prior motive to answer my questions and point me to avenues of exploration. After all, I never met Grant in person; the closest I came was playing against him a few times on OK Bridge. Once I played with Dick Vission versus Grant and Tarek and we did 24 hands in less than an hour. We can’t play speed (a variant bridge game like goulie) at that pace.

He wondered openly why this paradox where ACBL Presidents and pundits talk the talk, but can’t walk the walk?

In The Bulletin of August, 1979 ACBL President Leo Spivak writing about Sion and Cokin said: “Prearranged Improper Communication. The gravest possible offence against propriety is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws….…..it gets an important message to the members of the American Contract Bridge League, namely, that we shall vigorously pursue any breaches of the proprieties or instances of cheating that are brought to our attention.”

Lovely, and predictable and of course, nice parts bark, one sliver bite.

Cheating remains the bastard child who always rears his ugly head, empties your fridge and drains your liquor cabinet, apologizes for past transgressions and mooches money you know you’ll never see again. Then he slinks away, and you hope the silverware was hidden. When do we get off the merry-go-round and change our rules (or at least the policy) and start to get serious? Let me know when you find that out. Ask Kenny Gee.

Frank Vine once wrote a story for TBW about cheating. If I recall (and I do) he said it was the only piece he had ever rejected and he could only assume (as no one explained) that the reason was the inflammatory (litigious?) nature of the issue. On a more humourous note Frank also suggested once that the ACBL move itself to Canada, specifically for litigation purposes. Up here you don’t get 100K if your neighbour’s dog deposits on your lawn, spill your own coffee while driving or happen to be injured while committing a crime. You want to sue because a League has booted you for violating its laws and you can’t earn a living? Find a real job, punch the clock, move to a more amenable jurisdiction. Most of us see American justice as excruciatingly litigious and presumably Frank saw that Canada and other nations would pose a friendlier legal climate than the ACBL presently enjoys.

If I dare say so, it is the litigation and the fear of lawsuits – real or imaginary – that impairs the League(s) from solving this once and for all. We don’t do justice well.

I asked Grant about Sion/Colin and Katz/Cohen and this was his reply.

Hey Cam,

I am virtually certain that it was the winter of 83, effective 84, that we were to play*, but it might have been the winter of 84, effective 85. In any case, it was the winter for sure; cold as hell in New England somewhere, when I met Sion for the first time.

Larry did not suffer from allergies; at the time he was a coke freak, which was the cause of the sniffles.

It seems important to note that Katz/Cohen sued for a trial (to establish their innocence), whereas Cokin/Sion sued for “deprivation of livelihood,” admitting guilt.

Of course I would relinquish a championship I won with teammates proved guilty of cheating. I have lost championships against opponents proved guilty of cheating (most recently, the cars in the semi-finals in New York three or four years ago); I do not understand the inertia of the league in these situations, but I don’t want to know, as the answer would be unsatisfactory.

I am sure you know the story of the St. Louis Nationals years ago, when Cokin confessed the first night and Sion packed his bags and left immediately.

Ron Andersen’s ethics were terrible, but he did state that he was sure Cokin/Sion were crooks before it was proved. He also said the same thing about XXXXXXXXX (redacted by CF), which was never proved. I never had any respect for Andersen, and could not understand why he and Paul were so tight.

The email address I have for XXXXXXXXXXX, (redacted by CF), but I do not know if it is still valid. I have not asked his permission to give you his email, so I would prefer if you did not tell him I gave it to you, although I can live with it.

Regards,

Grant Baze

*In another email Grant noted:

……. I was approached to play on a National team with a two year commitment with Dr. Sternberg, Cokin, Sion, and Mike Passell. I talked to the great players to find out exactly what the story was with Cokin/Sion; all the players said Cokin/Sion were crooks, so I refused the offer. Mike had signed a contract to play on the team, but the contract stipulated that if I did not play, he was not bound to play; subsequently he did not play, and the team never happened.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Two things caught my eye in Peggy’s tribute when I read it and the first was this:

Reviewing Tipton’s declarer play on a hand, Grant realized that their score was in error. Finding a director, Grant had the score changed from making to down one – sending Grant and Tipton from first to sixth. Grant’s words: Winning would be meaningless if it weren’t fairly earned. (Emphasis added) Why is that feeling not the norm? Or is it? It certainly is with the experts I chatted to, but saying it is one thing, stepping up is another. And besides, most of the elite dodge the dubious for obvious reasons – starting with self-preservation.

The second was this:

Of course I would relinquish a championship I won with teammates proved guilty of cheating. it seemed patently obvious to Grant, which is clearly not so apparent to others.

I asked him pointed questions while researching Collateral Damage. To my delight he was very forthcoming. He provided insight, suggested people to talk to, and shared his own opinions openly. He was disdainful of cheaters, and saw them as blight upon the game.

Grant could not fathom how the League enabled cheaters to run amok let alone punished them so leniently. Note that: “winning would be meaningless if it weren’t fairly earned.” And I guess that brings me back to ground zero. That makes me wonder why Alan Sontag, Peter Weichsel, Dr. Sternberg or the now repentent Allan Cokin don’t toss back their ill-gotten gains of Norfolk.

Clearly they don’t share Grant’s perspective.

Pity. And that would be that an unlwfully obtained title should not rest upon one’s mantlepiece. If it does, it resonates shame. Cheaters, and team mates who accrue the benefits of their cheating team mates deserve to keep their spoils. To suggest otherwise is ……..Mr. Sontag……. you fill in the blank.

All the ACBL has is five expert eye-witnesses who broke the code at the 3/79 event, a legal appeal for committee that was never granted and signed confessions from the perpetrators. I guess that is insufficient to strip them of the title as they will not voluntarily renouce it. What sort of laws are those that allow such an injustice? But I digress, forgive me.

After all, it’s a new year and maybe time to start fresh. I plan to let this bone go, (Ok maybe just a little) got some new flesh and bones and skirts to chase. If you are female, hot, loaded and single please email me to discuss options. 🙂 As Peggy noted, Grant was quite the ladies man, ditched ex-wives at a rate that made Zsa Zsa look monogamous.

The fee I asked you to pay at the beginning is paltry enough. And remember, you concurred by reading on. If you have stories about Grant, not necessarily hands but anecdotes, please share at least one. I have very warm feelings for the man, and hope to share some of your insights, yarns, fables and anecdotes with the readers. If you have them, please post below in Comments or email me at

c.jfrench@rogers.com.

I will feel free to publish your personal emails. If you request not to be accredited; in such cases I will respect that too.

I want to celebrate Grant’s life. Please help me do so. Without motive (known to me) he shared his insight, he deplored the cheaters and to my mind – is the consumate bridge professional. Although he respected Alan and Peter as players he wondered in private why they chose not do the right thing? He noted that he later became friends with Cokin but “could never forgive” Sion. A fair balance. It’s a new year and we should celebrate the opportunity that offers to all of us.

Everyone I talked to held this man in high esteem in bridge ethics. He rose above the throng, and that was recognized far and wide. He would never say so himself of course, he was far too connected and polite.

Virtues I am yet to enjoy. 🙂

To Sir, with love,

C

Uncategorized

Hooked on a Feeling

December 16th, 2010 ~ Cam French ~ 19 Comments