[mikeh]

jdonn, on Nov 29 2007, 02:45 PM, said:

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.

I almost always suit my cards, but they are always in a random order within the suit, which tends to make 'slotting' less reliable. Dan Jacob, a good BC player, good friend and occasional partner never sorts at all. I have tried that, but not consistently enough that my brain will subconsciously adapt to it so I find it too much work. If I were looking to play a lot of serious bridge, I would definitely recommend not sorting at all... my expectation would be that within a few months, at the most, it would become automatic.

[skjaeran]

mikeh, on Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 29 2007, 02:45 PM, said:

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.

I almost always suit my cards, but they are always in a random order within the suit, which tends to make 'slotting' less reliable. Dan Jacob, a good BC player, good friend and occasional partner never sorts at all. I have tried that, but not consistently enough that my brain will subconsciously adapt to it so I find it too much work. If I were looking to play a lot of serious bridge, I would definitely recommend not sorting at all... my expectation would be that within a few months, at the most, it would become automatic.

I know some at that time (mid-70's) junior players in Oslo practised by just looking at their hands for a few seconds without sorting the cards, putting the cards aside and play out the hand by just naming cards.

[jikl]

Quote

That's illegal - look up Law 74C5.

At no stage did I say it was legal. I was saying we have heard of people that apparently do this. Whilst we may not have observed this happening you will find that we take the word of the accuser and defend against it. This is an interesting point, since we are now looking for the possible action which means any glance at another player is "evidence" of the cheating.

Sean

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

If I were looking to play a lot of serious bridge, I would definitely recommend not sorting at all... my expectation would be that within a few months, at the most, it would become automatic.

that would make you unpopular with kibbitzers.
although now with most spectating being done via BBO it doesn't actually matter.

[JanM]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 29 2007, 06:04 PM, said:

mikeh, on Nov 29 2007, 08:56 PM, said:

If I were looking to play a lot of serious bridge, I would definitely  recommend not sorting at all... my expectation would be that within a few months, at the most, it would become automatic.

that would make you unpopular with kibbitzers.

Many years ago, I kibitzed Bob Hamman through a US Team Trials (back in the days when that meant 2 matches). He would pick up his hand, sort it, glance at it, shuffle it and then close it up forever. That was the toughest kibitzing I ever did! You had to pay close attention to catch that moment in time when the hand was actually fanned and in order, then remember the hand from then on. Probably good training, but definitely not relaxing .

[mrdct]

It's a lot easier to just hold your hand under the table.

[geller]

TimG, on Nov 29 2007, 01:39 PM, said:

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?

Actually Edgar Kaplan asked exactly this (semi-rhetorical) question (more than once IIRC) in editorials in The Bridge World. The obvious implication was that as long as the team-mates of the allegedly ethically challenged pair knew they had a good shot at winning the event they made a point of seeing no evil, hearing no evil, .....

[1eyedjack]

Even if you know that your opponent sorts his cards, unless you know the manner in which he sorts them can slotting be effective? If not, it seems to me that sorting your cards in some algorithm that the opponent is unlikely to predict but yet which enables you (the sorter) to continue to benefit from that act should be safe. Furthermore, the amount of mental energy that the slotter will have to expend in deciphering the algorithm is mental energy that he might have spent more profitably analysing the hand using more conventional methods. If he believes in error that he has decrypted the cipher then any reliance on slotting would be particularly dangerous. I think on the whole I would be happy for my opponent to engage in this activity. I am reasonably sure that I do not sort my cards in a manner that any opponent can predict with confidence.

[foo]

The_Hog, on Nov 28 2007, 01:21 AM, said:

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.

I happen to think R&S did not cheat.

However, I assure you this is a =minority= opinion among experts and regulating authorities.

Alan Truscott and Dorothy (Hayden) Truscott pretty much hammered at Reese and Schapiro's reputations for their entire lives. Long after neither Terrence nor Boris would make any comment, the Truscott's were happy to give their opinion on the issue. When only one side of a confilict is doing all the talking...

(This is particularly "amusing" given that the reason the 1960's pair of Dorothy and BJ Becker stopped was that they were told to never play as partners ever again due to some "irregularities" in that partnership, yet public awareness of that cheating case is almost nil.)

(Nor is that the only cheating case that most of the world does not know enough of.
Victor Mitchell has probably spun in his grave on more than one occasion due to the antics of a particular one of his proteg'e's when said proteg'e was younger...)

As for skill levels of Reese and Shapiro; Reese was definitely the theorist, but Boris Schapiro was one of the best money bridge players in the world at one point.

Both Boris's ATT card sense and his table feel were legends.

And yes, I definitely know of sessions Boris played in his 90's with partners or opponents good enough to know what was going on ATT where Boris executed Stepping Stones and other high level defensive or play techniques at speeds comparable to Rodwell or Helgamo.
I know some of the people who were ATT on some of those occasions.

[foo]

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

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

I actually caught someone slotting once. I believe in Innocent Until Proven Guilty so I set a trap in a long match for a player who had an unproven rep for it.

I on purpose sorted my cards one way until I was fairly sure they had seen the pattern and then switched the sort on a hand were I knew it would make a major difference if the accused was actually basing their play on slotting.

He fell for it, and I submitted the evidence to the local bridge authorities.
He was given a justly earned "vacation" from tournament bridge.

People =should= be considered Innocent Until Proven Guilty. I even suggested that investigations were irrevocably tainted by bias, and therefore the charges should be dropped, when that principle was violated.
But "proof" at something like cheating at cards sometimes has to be based on statistical evidence or singular incidents because, unlike murder or robbery, the crime is essentially empheral in nature: Unless every nuance of a session ATT is properly and permanently recorded, there is no solid lasting evidence like a body or marked bills or ...

[MickyB]

Interesting, Foo...could you post more details?

[skjaeran]

foo, on Dec 2 2007, 05:42 PM, said:

I happen to think R&S did not cheat.

However, I assure you this is a =minority= opinion among experts and regulating authorities.

I guess you're talking about american experts here.

I doubt the majority view is the same in Europe, but I might be wrong.

[Mbodell]

jikl, on Nov 27 2007, 04:08 AM, said:

Another interesting read which I don't think covers Katz-Cohen it does mention the Kleinman book at least once is Cathy Chua's "Fair Play or Foul". May be hard to get hold of except in Autralia. (One section was serialised in IPBM back in about the mid 90s)

Sean

I picked that up at a west coast US regional and agree it is a terrific read. She makes a very compelling general case that the procedures to find cheats are flawed and that it isn't surprising that the US players would be more apt to suspect cheats due to their philosophy about the game.

[nige1]

It is dreadful for Bridge when cheats prosper but it is a disaster for a player, wrongly accused of cheating.

The case against most alleged cheats is statistical. Few jurors understand expert bridge and most suspect statistics.

Patrick Jourdain consulted a lawyer before successfully banning a cheat. The lawyer advised Patrick that he would need to confront the suspect with evidence so compelling that the suspect would confess in front of witnesses, preferably in writing. Otherwise, the WBU wold probably have to contest a court case that would bankrupt them, even if they won.

About 40 years ago, after the R&S farce, the suggestion was that the WBF immediately train a panel of cheating investigators who would

• Publish an investigation protocol.
  
• Advise about and if necessary conduct independent investigation of allegations.

Until this is done, IMO, more parodies of justice are inevitable.