[nige1]

ArtK78, on 2014-July-25, 17:37, said:

Exactly. This matter is over. The WBF has spoken twice on the matter, and given ample opportunity to the accused to defend themselves.

There are some similarities between the case of E & W and the case of R & S. The WBF spoke twice on the matter of R & S. First it referred the case to the BBL, who exonerated them. Then the WBF reversed that decision and banned them. The WBF was criticised -- especially for its original enquiry

Accusers didn't recuse themselves (e.g. a witness against R & S was chairman). R & S were neither shown all the evidence, nor given an opportunity to prepare a defence.

Reese and Truscott wrote fascinating accounts of the scandal, demonstrating how facts and gossip can be selected and biased in contradictory ways. Biographies of several top US bridge-players contain imaginative accounts (similar to the JDeegan/Jacoby version). R & S didn't admit to cheating, although some UK contemporaries suspect they're guilty. The WBF demonstrate little progress in such matters, over 50 years.

[nige1]

hrothgar, on 2014-July-25, 19:45, said:

I think that the WBF showed enormous progress: Most notably,

1. They identified a hypothesis before a major event (E+W are transmitting information via coughs using the following code)
2. They then used observers and videos to record W+E's pattern of coughs
3. They then demonstrated that the coughs were consistent with the hand records

It's certainly possible to recommend additional improvements, however, the WBF is streets ahead of how previous cheating scandals were handled.

(I think that the American team also deserves significant credit for not pulling a Mathe)

Investigation techniques do seem to have been improved.

At Buenos Aires, most of the observers confirmed the R & S code -- but they were told what it was before they watched -- unfortunately, video evidence was unavailable.

We are told that the E & W code was broken in Bali and kept under wraps while preparing for confirmation at the Cavendish -- a considerable achievement. Are the Cavendish videos on-line anywhere?

[jdeegan]

Zelandakh, on 2014-July-25, 14:18, said:

You might want to refresh your memory somewhat before your next post on the subject, which is naturally quite contentious.

Gee, I thought my recollections were fairly labeled and presented as oral history. As such, they simply exist for the record. Maybe Jake and other well known players and bridge politicians from Texas were right about the cheating, and maybe they were wrong (although I seriously doubt it). Their view of those events carries more weight with me than all the written B.S. created by Reese and company after he lawyered up. He actually published a book on the topic. It is one of the few books Reese ever wrote that I never owned. Despite the scandal, he remains highly respected by everyone I know both as a bridge player and author.

[the hog]

jdeegan, on 2014-July-26, 18:59, said:

Gee, I thought my recollections were fairly labeled and presented as oral history. As such, they simply exist for the record. Maybe Jake and other well known players and bridge politicians from Texas were right about the cheating, and maybe they were wrong (although I seriously doubt it). Their view of those events carries more weight with me than all the written B.S. created by Reese and company after he lawyered up. He actually published a book on the topic. It is one of the few books Reese ever wrote that I never owned. Despite the scandal, he remains highly respected by everyone I know both as a bridge player and author.

Do you even read replies to your posts? You claim his signalling was to hid a hole in the Little Major system. He did NOT PLAY LITTLE MAJOR with Schapiro. So much for your oral history!

[jdeegan]

the hog, on 2014-July-25, 18:38, said:

You see this is what happens when you post on matters you know nothing about. Read Zel's post below. Have you bothered to read Truscott's and Reese's books on the case before making your libellous post?

So sue me.

Oops, sorry you can't sue an American for having his or her opinion about a public figure no matter how much you disagree with it. Oh well.

As far as non-public figures are concerned, you have to be shown to be in error. Oops, Reese was, in fact, found guilty. Oh well.

[Zelandakh]

jdeegan, on 2014-July-26, 19:12, said:

So sue me.

Oops, sorry you can't sue an American for having his or her opinion about a public figure no matter how much you disagree with it. Oh well.

As far as non-public figures are concerned, you have to be shown to be in error. Oops, Reese was, in fact, found guilty. Oh well.

But an American can be sued for writing their opinion. Of course since neither the hog or I have been materially damaged the point is moot. But then again we do not need to sue to show that you are in error on this matter.

[the hog]

jdeegan, on 2014-July-26, 19:12, said:

So sue me.

Oops, sorry you can't sue an American for having his or her opinion about a public figure no matter how much you disagree with it. Oh well.

As far as non-public figures are concerned, you have to be shown to be in error. Oops, Reese was, in fact, found guilty. Oh well.

Actually you can be sued. There is also the question of self respect in not posting libels abouth others. I guess you lack that self respect..
Reese was in fact exonerated, even more oh well!

[ArtK78]

the hog, on 2014-July-26, 20:18, said:

Reese was in fact exonerated, even more oh well!

Really? By any authority other than British?

[the hog]

By the BBF, which was a much fairer investigation than the deeply flawed WBF one.

[Zelandakh]

ArtK78, on 2014-July-26, 21:42, said:

Really? By any authority other than British?

It depends on what one believes. When R-S were reinstated it was reported in America that it was because the 3 years were sufficient. In other parts of the world it was reported that the WBF had conducted a long enquiry and found the evidence of guilt insufficient. I do not know which account is true but if the latter this was not a British authority.

[jdeegan]

the hog, on 2014-July-25, 18:38, said:

Further why the slur on Schapiro?What do you know about him that no one else does?

I can only report that, whatever the truth, at the time Boris(?) Schapiro was the fall guy. In retrospect this makes sense at least to me.

1. Reese, despite his prickly personality, was much respected and beloved in the bridge world.
2. He had been caught cheating red handed (no pun intended).
3. He should not, according to the powers that were, have evaded punishment. That would have encouraged cheating and, as such, had the potential to destroy international tournament bridge.
4. His partner was thus set up to take the fall, almost regardless of the truth whatever that might have been.

Local rumor at the time had it that he was "a shady character".

[the hog]

jdeegan, on 2014-July-26, 23:00, said:

I can only report that, whatever the truth, at the time Boris(?) Schapiro was the fall guy. In retrospect this makes sense at least to me.

1. Reese, despite his prickly personality, was much respected and beloved in the bridge world.
2. He had been caught cheating red handed (no pun intended).
3. He should not, according to the powers that were, have evaded punishment. That would have encouraged cheating and, as such, had the potential to destroy international tournament bridge.
4. His partner was thus set up to take the fall, almost regardless of the truth whatever that might have been.

Local rumor at the time had it that he was "a shady character".

This is again incorrect. Do you know anything about this case at all? I think not.

[1eyedjack]

How can one individual "take a fall" in a cheating system the success of which relies on a conspiracy?

[Zelandakh]

jdeegan, on 2014-July-26, 23:00, said:

Local rumor at the time had it that he was "a shady character".

I can certainly see how his sense of humour might be taken that way - his famous greeting to female players was to ask if they wanted to commit adultery, for example. He was also known for his tirades at partners and (at least) once had a TD call from the opponents to try to protect his partner from further abuse. But aside from Buenos Aires there was no other suspicion as to his ethics that I am aware of. That was enough though and there were plenty of British players who thought they were guilty, to the point that the incident is often said to have split the bridge community in England. Since I was not old enough to see it I cannot really comment on that - perhaps we have members who were on the scene in the late 60s-early 70s who can provide a more accurate picture though.

[barmar]

Cascade, on 2014-July-25, 00:28, said:

Only trouble is the last board was not damning and seems very weak evidence.

That's your opinion. Apparently Wold felt differently.

Whether he was right or not doesn't invalidate the logic.

[the hog]

barmar, on 2014-July-27, 09:24, said:

That's your opinion. Apparently Wold felt differently.

Whether he was right or not doesn't invalidate the logic.

It certainly does invalidate the logic. Also don't forget that he is heavily biased as he was paid to and expected to win.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2014-July-25, 22:59, said:

Investigation techniques do seem to have been improved. At Buenos Aires, most of the observers confirmed the R & S code -- but they were told what it was before they watched -- unfortunately, video evidence was unavailable.
We are told that the E & W code was broken in Bali and kept under wraps while preparing for confirmation at the Cavendish -- a considerable achievement. Are the Cavendish videos on-line anywhere?

Was sound/video confirmation from the Cavendish worth the wait? Please would somebody provide a link to the recordings. Are the doctors going to take their case any further?

[MrAce]

nige1, on 2014-September-15, 12:23, said:

Was sound/video confirmation from the Cavendish worth the wait? Please would somebody provide a link to the recordings. Are the doctors going to take their case any further?

Who knows, perhaps WBF is keeping them in reserve in order to slap it on their face in case they take their case further. Don't forget they do not need to provide any evidence from another event except than the one they accused them of cheating But that does not mean they can not use it against them when they want to

[mgoetze]

nige1, on 2014-September-15, 12:23, said:

Was sound/video confirmation from the Cavendish worth the wait? Please would somebody provide a link to the recordings.

What recordings? A director took notes and testified about them. Do you want to see them in his handwriting or what do you mean by "recordings"?

[1eyedjack]

mgoetze, on 2014-September-16, 12:17, said:

What recordings? A director took notes and testified about them. Do you want to see them in his handwriting or what do you mean by "recordings"?

I suppose that if you have sufficient advance notice of a likely requirement to produce evidence, and an opportunity is squandered to eliminate or reduce the potential for reliance on testimony where direct observation is possible, then that could be regarded as negligent.