[PassedOut]

foo, on Nov 27 2007, 04:49 AM, said:

Shapiro =in his 90's= could execute Stepping Stone Squeezes ATT as fast as Rodwell or Helgamo can now.

Is this statement from your insider knowledge as well?

I do understand that allegations of cheating against a pair will never go away, no matter how many books are written to debunk the charges, and no matter what anyone says. That's precisely why such allegations, when unproven, are so despicable.

[Codo]

PassedOut, on Nov 27 2007, 11:20 PM, said:

foo, on Nov 27 2007, 04:49 AM, said:

Shapiro =in his 90's= could execute Stepping Stone Squeezes ATT as fast as Rodwell or Helgamo can now.

Is this statement from your insider knowledge as well?

I do understand that allegations of cheating against a pair will never go away, no matter how many books are written to debunk the charges, and no matter what anyone says. That's precisely why such allegations, when unproven, are so despicable.

I like thy style you defend your case.

As a non American, I have never heard about these cases, so I have no opinion about this case.

But some other comments:

1. It is very difficult to prove any cheat besides the clearest ones. It is like doping. you very often have a strong supiscion but not enough facts to ban the cheaters.

2. Being good is no good reason not to cheat. There are cheaters between the very best, even among the Italian champions.

3. I agree with Richard that you have to check all hands. How many unusual leads had been made and how many had been a lucky strike? Had there been hands of the same handtype where the accused refused unusual leads which had been disastrous? This is much easier to check today, so the game may well get cleaner during the years.

[mikeh]

hrothgar, on Nov 27 2007, 07:41 AM, said:

foo, on Nov 27 2007, 12:49 PM, said:

I said what I meant.  I have some inside knowledge of the case.

I don't claim any esoteric knowledge about this case. I haven't even bothered to read Kleinman's book.

I do have one question for some of the folks who are talking about Kaplan's contentions about opening leads:

Do we have any information about the sampling techniques? Its fine and dandy to say that you have a collection of 15 incriminating leads. My immediate reaction is to ask for the complete set of boards. I want to understand whether there is an overall pattern of unusual leads and then try to figure out whether a statistically significant percentage of these leads "worked".

My impression (from other discussion about cheating) is that most individuals don't understand issues like significance tests. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if Kaplan didn't keep excellent records of boards that he found suspicious. However, I'm not sure whether he would bother to keep enough additional information about all of the routine hands.

I understand the point Richard is making, but I am not sure that it is valid when it comes to assessing the competency or integrity of supposedly top players.

A hallmark of the 'best' players... the top dozen of so in the world, is the relative infrequency of unforced errors. There are choices that these players make that are automatic at their skill level. Some of them occasionally exhibit flair and do something unorthodox, yet the Zia's of the world have a reason for their unorthodox action, which is almost always in the auction, not in the play and very rarely, from what I have read, on opening lead. One reason these players ARE the best is their consistency.

Kaplan's point, which was not stated explicitly, seems to have been that Katz and Cohen seemed to make occasional plays that were utterly illogical by the tenents of other top experts and, when they did so, always struck gold. And it is illogical to argue that maybe he was overlooking a significant number of leads where the leads were odd and cost badly... because the entire point was that these two players were WINNING at a truly astonishing rate, and it was impossible to win like that if the majority of your leads were costing imps.

And we are speaking of tournament reports: Kaplan was describing lengthy matches betweeen top teams, with discussion of every significant swing in the match.. not cherry picking a few hands to prove a point. If in a 64 board match he reported every swing hand, and the only odd leads proved effective, then it would appear that the inference that something improper was going on would appear strong... and that is my impression of what he was describing.

But, let me make it clear, we are discussing inferences here, not clear proof of anything... the inferences satisfied me, especially re-reading them after the Houston scandal, but maybe I have a suspicious mind, and maybe I was being unfair...as I wrote earlier, only K and C know for sure.

[JanM]

The assumption that started this thread (that Katz & Cohen were partners in the BAM in San Francisco) is not correct. Katz played with Pamela Granovetter, Cohen with Matthew.
And the Larry Cohen who wrote the book and plays with David Berkowitz won the event

[PassedOut]

JanM, on Nov 27 2007, 10:11 PM, said:

The assumption that started this thread (that Katz & Cohen were partners in the BAM in San Francisco) is not correct. Katz played with Pamela Granovetter, Cohen with Matthew.
And the Larry Cohen who wrote the book and plays with David Berkowitz won the event

My mistake -- thanks for the information. Guess my wishful thinking got the best of me.

[the hog]

Quote Foo:
"Let's put it this way.
The majority opinion was that Reese and Shapiro cheated even before the supposedly true statements after Reese's death.
Reese was legitimately a WC player in his day, and one of the 2 best authors of advanced bridge books to have ever lived.
Shapiro =in his 90's= could execute Stepping Stone Squeezes ATT as fast as Rodwell or Helgamo can now."

Oh dear oh dear, I knew I shouldn't have started reading this read. Foo you are full of crap. Whose majority opinion are you talking about? People I know who have played against Reese and Shapiro, people I know who were at Buenos Aires are totally convinced the opposite is the truth, so don't make sweeping statements based on hot air. Tim Seres openly offered a $1000 bet if anyone could prove R+S were guilty of cheating. No one ever took it up, not even Scheinwold.

Btw even though Shapiro was a very good player he was not in the class of Reese, and I very much doubt if he was in the class of Meckwell.

[CtznCane]

Back before this incident I thought pretty highly of Kats-Cohen though I didn't know and had not played against either. In the late 80's I got to know one of the members of the team Katz-Cohen played on. Let's just say their team-matem who was a fine and highly ethical player, didn't defend them which tells me a lot.

It is unfortunate that due to all the legal crap and theats of suits it makes it difficult to simply ban someone. The fact that they agreed to not play together also leads me to believe that they were guilty.

Does this mean they are bad people? No, the merely succumbed to the pressures that go along with being at the upper echelon of any game or activity.

[jonottawa]

Given that this thread is based on a false premise, I think it's in poor taste to drudge up ancient history. Especially with so many whisperers electing to remain anonymous. I'd lock this puppy down.

[pclayton]

This post isn't correct.

Pam Granovetter is playing with Dr. Katz and Matt is playing with Cohen. We played Pam / Katz in the 1st Q session of the BAM.

(Oops - just saw Jan's post)

[han]

cherdano, on Nov 26 2007, 05:50 PM, said:

helene_t, on Nov 26 2007, 04:48 PM, said:

The SF results list two Larry Cohens, one from Florida playing with Berkowitz and one from Nevada playing with Katz.

The Larry Cohen who wrote so many LAW books and is the regular partner of David Berkowitz is from Florida, and is NOT the same person who was suspected of cheating when playing with Richard Katz.

Let's also point out that This Richard Katz is not the same person as the Other Ralph Katz, who played on USA1 in the Bermuda Bowl.

[jdonn]

Hannie, on Nov 28 2007, 05:26 PM, said:

Let's also point out that This Richard Katz is not the same person as the Other Ralph Katz, who played on USA1 in the Bermuda Bowl.

Uh.... and while we are at it, this David Berkowitz is not the same person as Shaquille O'Neal, famous basketball player.

[mike777]

hmmm is there some limit on names that are allowed to win at top bridge in the USA?

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Nov 29 2007, 11:31 AM, said:

Hannie, on Nov 28 2007, 05:26 PM, said:

Let's also point out that This Richard Katz is not the same person as the Other Ralph Katz, who played on USA1 in the Bermuda Bowl.

Uh.... and while we are at it, this David Berkowitz is not the same person as Shaquille O'Neal, famous basketball player.

I think this is purely speculation...

... I doubt you have any hard evidence to prove such an outrageous claim.

[jonottawa]

I'd also point out that Larry Cohen, who is not the guy who wrote the LAW books and plays with Berkowitz, is not to be confused with former ACBL Chief Executive, the late Ralph Cohen and that Ralph Cohen is not Ralph Katz, who played on USA1 in Shanghai. And as has already been stated, Ralph Katz is not Richard Katz.

In other words, these guys aren't the same person, just in case anyone was unclear on that point.

I should also probably clarify that neither one is me, either. Though I'm often confused with John Gowdy for that very reason (through the Bruce Ferguson, Bruce Gowdy line.)

[TimG]

CtznCane, on Nov 28 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

In the late 80's I got to know one of the members of the team Katz-Cohen played on. Let's just say their team-matem who was a fine and highly ethical player, didn't defend them which tells me a lot.

If a fine and highly ethical player thought it likely they were cheating, why was he playing on their team?

[jikl]

The problem with any cheating allegation is that you are guilty until proven innocent, and it is both impossible to prove if you are cheating, or not.

To give you an example...

I am sure you all know what slotting is. I am sure you have heard rumours of a player in your particular area that slots. Do you hold your cards under the table against them or out of view? Or do you decide to not sort your cards against them? This in itself could be some sort of cryptic signalling method. Even if it is not intentional. For instance; you and your partner "know" player X slots; yet on board 3 of a 20 board match you actually sort your cards. Do you have a good hand, or something interesting? Will your partner be able to subconsciously keep that out of mind? All of you will say yes, of course I could, but think about it.

Is it reverse cheating, is it cheating? If you were reported for sorting your hand because it was good, how could you PROVE you were not cheating?

You can't. Once you are accused you are guilty for life regardless of whether you were doing anything.

Sean

[FrancesHinden]

jikl, on Nov 29 2007, 12:20 PM, said:

I am sure you all know what slotting is.

Go on then, what's slotting?

[jikl]

Slotting is when one looks at a defender or declarer to see where cards are pulled from the hand to work out quickly how long the suits are.

Sean

[skjaeran]

jikl, on Nov 29 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

Slotting is when one looks at a defender or declarer to see where cards are pulled from the hand to work out quickly how long the suits are.

Sean

That's illegal - look up Law 74C5.

[jdonn]

jikl, on Nov 29 2007, 06:20 AM, said:

Do you hold your cards under the table against them or out of view?

I always do, it's an old habit of mine and keeps me from having to worry about people looking at where I pull my cards.