[PassedOut]

Reading the daily bulletin from the San Francisco NABC today, I was most pleased to see that Matt and Pam Granovetter have teamed up with Dr. Richard Katz and Mr. Larry Cohen.

When I first learned to play bridge in college, Katz and Cohen were already an exceptionally fine partnership. Furthermore, they were just all-around good guys, very helpful to those of us just starting out in bridge.

Unfortunately (in my considered opinion) they became too successful to suit the bridge establishment of the day. Therefore Katz and Cohen became the object of a despicable whispering campaign launched by players no longer able to beat them fairly and squarely at the bridge table.

Despite the injustices done to them, they dropped their lawsuit against the ACBL to avoid further damaging the game they loved. They even agreed to break up their partnership to avoid further controversy.

Now that their partnership has been restored, I sincerely wish them great success. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but I'd like to see them playing in the Bermuda Bowl one day. That would provide at least a bit of recompense for what was taken from them as young men.

[mikeh]

PassedOut, on Nov 26 2007, 03:43 PM, said:

Reading the daily bulletin from the San Francisco NABC today, I was most pleased to see that Matt and Pam Granovetter have teamed up with Dr. Richard Katz and Mr. Larry Cohen.

When I first learned to play bridge in college, Katz and Cohen were already an exceptionally fine partnership. Furthermore, they were just all-around good guys, very helpful to those of us just starting out in bridge.

Unfortunately (in my considered opinion) they became too successful to suit the bridge establishment of the day. Therefore Katz and Cohen became the object of a despicable whispering campaign launched by players no longer able to beat them fairly and squarely at the bridge table.

Despite the injustices done to them, they dropped their lawsuit against the ACBL to avoid further damaging the game they loved. They even agreed to break up their partnership to avoid further controversy.

Now that their partnership has been restored, I sincerely wish them great success. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but I'd like to see them playing in the Bermuda Bowl one day. That would provide at least a bit of recompense for what was taken from them as young men.

Wow... are you their press agent??

As someone who has read every issue of the BW published since (before) the early 1970's I can tell you that the evidence against these gentlemen seemed to be far more telling than mere jealous whispering.

Kaplan wrote a number of tournament reports in which he showed hands they defended. Time and time again, they would make leads that were staggering... completely abnormal by any conventional view of normal... and these leads ALWAYS found stuff in partner's hand. Stuff that was NOT indicated by any view of the auction.

Now, it is possible that they simply understood the game better than anyone else... or it is possible that they somehow knew where partner's strength lay.

I wasn't there. I have played against them, but not as partners. So I have no personal knowledge of what was really going on, and I need to stress that.

However, if the hands were fairly reported, and no objection was ever, to my knowledge, ever published, then one would have to be incredibly naive to accept that there was no improper communication going on.

The real problem, imo, was that the ACBL, typically for that era and perhaps still today, was wholly unprepared to deal with the allegations, by instituting a proper survelliance so as to put it beyond doubt. It was also lily-livered in knuckling under to the lawsuit, altho perhaps justified in that proving cheating, especially in front of non-bridge players, would have been very difficult if based on inferences from abnormal defence.


BTW, if these guys were, individually, so great, then why is it that they've won virtually nothing of significance since they were reinstated...conditional on never playing together again?

In their prime, they were not just 'good': they were incredibly successful. It would be like taking meckwell and splitting them up: is there anyone who thinks that they'd never make it back to USA1 or USA2 unless they played together?? And that is the level of success enjoyed by Katz and Cohen as a partnership.... and not remotely before or after.

Frankly, I wish they had been given a public hearing and, if found guilty, never, ever let back into the ACBL. I can sympathize with some cheaters... sometimes the motives and/or the life circumstances of the offender make it more pathetic than otherwise, but to cheat in order to make a (good) living at the game deserves permanent banishment.

Given that the ACBL screwed up the investigation and that the specifics of the evidence against them, at the Team Trials where they agree to withdraw, has never been made public, perhaps we have to give them some benefit of the doubt and perhaps this outcome is reasonable.. but claiming that an injustice was done is a bit rich for my taste.

Edit: if they were innocent, they would have my full sympathies, and I should add that I haven't heard their side of the stories... and maybe they had some plausible explanations for the hands I read about....I personally, having read and reread those stories over the years (I periodically reread old BWs), would have trouble imagining what they'd be, given the hands in question.

[jonottawa]

Mike's right. Posting this feel-good revisionist history wasn't the best idea.

Of course his comment about 'ALWAYS' hitting paydirt is a little specious since the hands were presumably selected that strengthened the case for the prosecution.

I'd also differ on the lifetime ban idea. Too harsh. A few years suspension and the shame of being 'convicted' of something like that would be punishment enough for anyone. 2nd offense we can look at a lifetime ban.

Maybe Senator Craig was just tapping his feet. Maybe the police officer didn't like him because he was such a successful foot tapper. Maybe he pled guilty because he was pursuing the best interest of the Minnesota criminal justice system.

But I doubt it.

Let these guys play. It's been a long time, long enough. But no, no revisionist history, thanks.

[jtfanclub]

Much as I'd love to hear the opinions of people on this issue...

I think we'd better lock down this thread. Way too dangerous.

[helene_t]

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

[cherdano]

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.

[Elianna]

cherdano, on Nov 26 2007, 02:50 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.

I think that there are actually three Larry Cohens. I think that the one playing with Berkowitz is not the same as the one that wrote the book. I have no proof of this, I just thought that someone told me that. The one playing with Berkowitz also looks different than pictures on the back of books, but that is not so unusual.

[jonottawa]

Elianna, on Nov 26 2007, 11:41 PM, said:

cherdano, on Nov 26 2007, 02:50 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.

I think that there are actually three Larry Cohens. I think that the one playing with Berkowitz is not the same as the one that wrote the book. I have no proof of this, I just thought that someone told me that. The one playing with Berkowitz also looks different than pictures on the back of books, but that is not so unusual.

I'm sure there are more than 3 Larry Cohens in the world, but the one that wrote the book is indeed the one who plays with Berkowitz.

As far as looking like his picture, I'd say he's aged better than most. His hair's a little shorter now than it was then. For a more up-to-date picture, check his column 'The Real Deal' in the Bulletin.

[inquiry]

I think I will try to watch this thread to make sure it doesn't go too far. I am not locking it down however. The houston affair is a famous case. Everyone should know that (at least as best I can remember) there was no ruling that they cheated, and in fact, if I remember, the ACBL had to pay their legal cost as part of a court settlement that specifically allowed them to be innocent and remain members in good standing in the ACBL, but yet they "had to" agree not to play with each other.

Danny Kleinman (spelling) wrote a nice book that on the events surrounding this case and after his review, concluded that they were not cheating. I think Danny did a good job in presenting the case. I have not firm belief one way or the other at this time on if htey cheated or not, but I remember reading about it at the time and figuring they "just had to be guilty" because they withdrew from the qualifying event from the bermuda bowl while leading by a huge margin. Everyone I talked too at that time thought they were guilty too, but none of us had access to all the hand records etc, something that Kleinman did have.

[PassedOut]

Quote

Wow... are you their press agent??

No, I haven't talked with either player in many, many years. Seeing their names together again today brought back old memories and the bad feelings about what happened to them.

I too own a complete run of The Bridge World (from 1964 to now) and have read the same reports. Their good results came not only from audacious, successful opening leads. They (particularly Mr. Cohen) had many fine dummy play results, including some very audacious, successful plays.

Quote

BTW, if these guys were, individually, so great, then why is it that they've won virtually nothing of significance since they were reinstated...conditional on never playing together again?

Regarding their bridge careers since that time, it's true that haven't reached the pinacle again (although they haven't exactly done poorly either). After what happened, potential teammates naturally didn't want to suffer guilt by association.

And it would have been quite a task for Dr. Katz, who is a physician and not a professional bridge player, to start over to build a world-class partnership. No doubt the motivation to do so was dampened considerably by what had transpired.

Quote

It would be like taking meckwell and splitting them up: is there anyone who thinks that they'd never make it back to USA1 or USA2 unless they played together??

Would Eric and Jeff rebound separately if it had happened to them? I don't know, but I'm glad that we live in a different day, where that won't happen.

With the screens and pads, it's now much more difficult for losers to claim that they've been cheated. A player can make an unusual bid or lead without causing raised eyebrows when it works. (Although there might be raised eyebrows from teammates when it fails.)

From my playing against Katz and Cohen, I know that they were not infallible, even though they were very, very good. Not every audacious lead was successful. And they have even been known to let contracts slip through that they could have beaten with top cards.

As students, Katz and Cohen won the national intercollegiate championship. In those days, getting into the finals required achieving a top score playing a set of predealt hands designed to test the technical skills of the players, particularly in dummy play. I played those predealt hands in the same contest as they did, and can attest that there was no cheating.

Finally, it seems to me that the top teams that Katz and Cohen played on would not have associated with players they even suspected of cheating. We all have egos at least to match our bridge skills, and none of us imagines that we need to cheat to win. Nor would we gain any satisfaction from winning by cheating.

It's truly great that players of the calibre of the Granovetters have stepped up and done the right thing. I hope they win.

[the hog]

I remember reading their book on Breakthrough and it seemed like an interesting system; it certainly had a lot of innovative ideas.

Re allegations of cheating: in my view you are guilty or not guilty. I cannot understand a piecemeal verdict which does not find them guilty but refuses to allow them to play together. I know the US is a litigious society and this may, (does), have a bearing on the eventual "solutions." However in the end no one is happy.

Another case, albeit in the Far East, was that of the Indonesian Manoppo Brothers who were accused of cheating with their opening leads. That accusation eventually broke up their partnership as well - one of the best in the world at that time. Ron Klinger wrote an article in Australian Brideg "Eenie Meenie Miney Manoppo", and as much as I like Ron, I thought this was really going a bit far. Their guilt was never proved. I notice that one of them has returned to open competition a few years ago.

[mikeh]

inquiry, on Nov 26 2007, 07:26 PM, said:

I think I will try to watch this thread to make sure it doesn't go too far. I am not locking it down however. The houston affair is a famous case. Everyone should know that (at least as best I can remember) there was no ruling that they cheated, and in fact, if I remember, the ACBL had to pay their legal cost as part of a court settlement that specifically allowed them to be innocent and remain members in good standing in the ACBL, but yet they "had to" agree not to play with each other.

Danny Kleinman (spelling) wrote a nice book that on the events surrounding this case and after his review, concluded that they were not cheating. I think Danny did a good job in presenting the case. I have not firm belief one way or the other at this time on if htey cheated or not, but I remember reading about it at the time and figuring they "just had to be guilty" because they withdrew from the qualifying event from the bermuda bowl while leading by a huge margin. Everyone I talked too at that time thought they were guilty too, but none of us had access to all the hand records etc, something that Kleinman did have.

I'd be interested in reading that book, if you have any info about when it was published and its name.. who knows, it may come up on ebay one of these days.

I always have doubts about such books, reinforced by the memoirs of Reese's publisher who, after Reese died, wrote that Reese had confessed to him that he and Schapiro had actually cheated in 1964... not to gain any edge, but prepartory to writing an article to show how easy it was to cheat... I have no opinion as to whether this is what actually happened, but I do know that Reese protested his innocence at the time, and there was a formal inquiry conducted by the EBU (I think) that purported to clear him, while several prominent US commentators were adamant, based on hand analysis, that he was guilty.

Only Katz and Cohen really know if they cheated.... and I do agree that they were very good players.... but so was Steve Sion, to name only one egregious example... The problem facing very good players who are not quite good enough but who want the fame and money that went with being a top flight pro partnership, is that being almost good enough is hopeless: but with just a tiny edge, maybe all that success is within one's grasp. And it is not as if it wasn't happening ... this was, after all, the era of the foot soldiers on the Italian team.

I have been involved, as an advisor, in cheating scandals at a local level, so I do know that there are usually at least two sides to every story. If they were innocent, then letting them play together is long overdue.

[jonottawa]

The book is 'Bridge Scandal in Houston' by Danny Kleinman

http://dannykleinman...ridgebooks.aspx

[jikl]

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

[helene_t]

jonottawa, on Nov 27 2007, 01:48 AM, said:

I'm sure there are more than 3 Larry Cohens in the world, but the one that wrote the book is indeed the one who plays with Berkowitz.

Yes.

[foo]

If it had been standard procedure to video tape partnerships, Katz & Cohen (!not! the same Cohen that plays with Berkowitz) would have been easily found guilty of cheating.

...and I agree with mikeh that those caught cheating should be Shunned from Organized Bridge.

Cheating, as opposed to simply being unethical, is the worst possible crime in Bridge.

Which is why we as a community have to be =very= careful about accusations of cheating and only convict of cheating when we have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a player or pair was cheating.

The Katz-Cohen case, like the Reese-Shapiro case, was botched in both the evidence gathering and the prosecutorial phases.

[1eyedjack]

foo, on Nov 27 2007, 10:13 AM, said:

If it had been standard procedure to video tape partnerships, Katz & Cohen (!not! the same Cohen that plays with Berkowitz) would have been easily found guilty of cheating.

Presumably you meant to append "... had they been cheating as alleged"?

[foo]

1eyedjack, on Nov 27 2007, 04:37 AM, said:

foo, on Nov 27 2007, 10:13 AM, said:

If it had been standard procedure to video tape partnerships, Katz & Cohen (!not! the same Cohen that plays with Berkowitz) would have been easily found guilty of cheating.

Presumably you meant to append "... had they been cheating as alleged"?

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

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.
Either as a pair or as individuals, Reese and Shapiro were superior players to Katz and Cohen.

Yet Katz and Cohen had a better success rate with unusual opening leads than Reese and Shapiro did.

When that kind of disparity exists between skill level and the success of unusual opening leads, it is a serious red flag. "Hard" evidence like Video simply makes incontrovertable what was already extraordinarily likely.

[jikl]

heh, that looks like the start of the closing of the thread.

Sean

[hrothgar]

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.