[pclayton]

mike777, on Jun 27 2005, 09:33 AM, said:

With screens
1) How does dummy see both opp hands or know how many diamonds are outstanding?
2) How does partner see arm tapping?

North sits on the same side of the screen as East and South as West, so North (if given the opportunity) can look into East's hand. As it turns out, East had the critical holding.

After the bidding is over, a hinged flap on the screen is turned up. My recollection is that this flap is about 6" high. During the play, you can see your partner's arms and midsection, but not the shoulders, head or face. Sometimes, after a hand, partners will talk to each other face to face. This involves a player craning his head sideways on the table to look up through the opening.

North could have seen transmitted info to partner if North's right hand was positioned near his left elbow, if North was sitting in a normal posture at the bridge player turning dummy.

[reisig]

Not knowing all the facts - makes it impossible to make a rational judgement. But if the 3 finger signal happened - and caused the winning play..then you have to ask yourself more questions. How did Buratti know that there was a signal unless this has happened before and was looking for it. Giving a signal has 2 sides - giving and receiving. The mere fact of seeing a signal is not enough ..He has to understand the meaning as well, which would indicate prior discussion of any signal. So, IF you think this is just ONE idle case...it can't be. All of this is meaningless if there was no "signal". But if so ...then this goes far deeper.

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Jun 27 2005, 06:06 PM, said:

luis, on Jun 27 2005, 12:33 PM, said:

This is so strange that I really don't know what to say...
I don't think a comitee can declare a pair cheated and ban them and eliminate the whole team for just one hand, that doesn't make any sense. Can they?

Luis is right as usual... .this just doesn't make sense. My point too...

Sorry, I don't follow here. I don't know the law but if we assue that the accusation is 100% right, I would find it outrageous if they only lost the good score in this specific board. For one thing that would make cheating a no-risk strategy -- after all just cheating on one hand per set would be enough to gain a huge advantage.

Arend

[inquiry]

cherdano, on Jun 27 2005, 05:16 PM, said:

inquiry, on Jun 27 2005, 06:06 PM, said:

luis, on Jun 27 2005, 12:33 PM, said:

This is so strange that I really don't know what to say...
I don't think a comitee can declare a pair cheated and ban them and eliminate the whole team for just one hand, that doesn't make any sense. Can they?

Luis is right as usual... .this just doesn't make sense. My point too...

Sorry, I don't follow here. I don't know the law but if we assue that the accusation is 100% right, I would find it outrageous if they only lost the good score in this specific board. For one thing that would make cheating a no-risk strategy -- after all just cheating on one hand per set would be enough to gain a huge advantage.

Arend

I think you misunderstand. It is not that they cheated on just one hand. If it is proven they cheated on just one hand, that is more than enough for the actions taken so far and more to follow.

It is just hard to imagine that, sans any other evidence before that this confirms, that this just one time event with one hand can be proof of cheating. At least in the Reese/Shapiro case, they got lots of people to watch future hands to try to confirm cheating was going on, so there was a record.

[uday]

http://www.eurobridge.org/bulletin/05_1_Te.../pdf/Bul_11.pdf

[DrTodd13]

inquiry, on Jun 27 2005, 02:01 PM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 27 2005, 05:16 PM, said:

inquiry, on Jun 27 2005, 06:06 PM, said:

luis, on Jun 27 2005, 12:33 PM, said:

This is so strange that I really don't know what to say...
I don't think a comitee can declare a pair cheated and ban them and eliminate the whole team for just one hand, that doesn't make any sense. Can they?

Luis is right as usual... .this just doesn't make sense. My point too...

Sorry, I don't follow here. I don't know the law but if we assue that the accusation is 100% right, I would find it outrageous if they only lost the good score in this specific board. For one thing that would make cheating a no-risk strategy -- after all just cheating on one hand per set would be enough to gain a huge advantage.

Arend

I think you misunderstand. It is not that they cheated on just one hand. If it is proven they cheated on just one hand, that is more than enough for the actions taken so far and more to follow.

It is just hard to imagine that, sans any other evidence before that this confirms, that this just one time event with one hand can be proof of cheating. At least in the Reese/Shapiro case, they got lots of people to watch future hands to try to confirm cheating was going on, so there was a record.

Just some thoughts.

I don't think we should have a system that can only catch stupid cheaters, namely those that cheat in the exact same way over time. If you were planning on cheating, wouldn't you encrypt your illegal signals in such a way that they resembled noise. If you were accused of knowing how to finesse due to partner coughing then if you randomize your signals it could be lack of coughing on the next hand that indicates how to finesse. You could say "see...on this hand we coughed and I finessed the other way and made it so I was just lucky. Given smart cheaters and our desire to catch them, we are going to have to make tough calls like this one. Are we going to catch more innocent people this way? At first we will but people will become more robotic so that there is no appearance of impropriety. Given that we'll catch some innocents it may be good to not have a lifetime ban until the 3rd "proven" offense. Before it gets to this point, incidents like this one will drive the highest level events onto computer. Players will be physically separated from everyone else and will use a computer with no other applications available other than the bridge app. Everyone will have a proctor to prevent consultation of notes, etc.

[hrothgar]

Here's another interesting comment from the BLML


James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 33-34:

Experts are also surprisingly bad at what social
scientists call "calibrating" their judgments. If
your judgments are well calibrated, then you have a
sense of how likely it is that your judgment is
correct. But experts are much more like normal
people: they routinely overestimate the likelihood
that they're right.

A survey on the question of overconfidence by
economist Terrence Odean found that physicians,
nurses, lawyers, engineers, entrepreneurs, and
investment bankers all believed that they knew more
than they did. Similarly, a recent study of
foreign-exchange traders found that 70 percent of
the time, the traders overestimated the accuracy of
their exchange-rate predictions. In other words,
it wasn't just that they were wrong; they also
didn't have any idea how wrong they were. And that
seems to be the rule among experts. The only
forecasters whose judgments are routinely well
calibrated are expert bridge players and
weathermen. It rains on 30 percent of the days
when weathermen have predicted a 30 percent chance
of rain.

* * *

Richard Hills notes:

_Because_ bridge experts are an exception to the
general rule that experts have poorly calibrated
judgments, a decisive factor in the Committee's
assessment was the Buratti's poorly calibrated
decision to choose to run the jack of diamonds (in
the absence of UI) or his well calibrated decision
(in the presence of UI suggesting a 1-3 break).

[epeeist]

uday, on Jun 27 2005, 05:21 PM, said:

http://www.eurobridge.org/bulletin/05_1_Te.../pdf/Bul_11.pdf

Thanks for posting the link to the report in the Tenerife bulletin.

It seems to me EW accused NS of cheating. NS denied. Appeals committee agreed with EW because they didn't like NS explanation for why J♦ played.

Does this mean, whenever ANY pair makes an anti-percentage play, their opponents may accuse them of cheating and unless a "good" explanation is given that will be upheld?!

Even assuming EW believed NS to be cheating, that doesn't necessarily mean they were. Even if the committee believed NS to be cheating, I think it entirely wrong and unfair to make a decision simply on the basis "EW accused you of cheating and your reason for playing the diamonds that way was not rational" [my paraphrasing]

The committee's reasons say EW believed information was passed and suggested a possible means. NS gave "unconvincing" reasons which were deemed to be "self-incriminating" (the reasons are in the bulletin linked to and don't seem all that self-incriminating, unless you mean, they may have been irrational?).

Are bridge players required to be robots who always make the "correct" play? And correctly deduce whether there opponents are likely to be in the same slam thus justifying an anti-percentage play?! Or are they permitted to sometimes make wrong or irrational or anti-percentage plays and get a "lucky" result? Go with a gut feeling? Play the Ace and fortunately drop a singleton king or the like? Mistakenly think the opponents may be in the same slam? Aside from the fact that there may be rational reasons to make anti-percentage plays as others have noted (e.g. you expect opponents to be in same slam and need a swing). One of Buratti's comments were that diamonds were always badly divided in the tournament so he expected them to be 1-3. Now, that may be irrational but so what? If a player carries a rabbit's foot or four-leaf clover will they be punished for being irrational?!

The message here seems to be, if like Buratti and Lanzarotti you have a bad reputation, you better never, ever, make an anti-percentage play. No matter what you feel, no matter how tired you are and difficult it may be to make the correct percentage decision. Even a momentary impulse like to play the jack of diamonds after thinking a while, that's wrong, having given into a moment's impulse and played the jack you should have treated it as an exposed card and tried to make the "right" play instead...etc.

I like playing blackjack, upon rare occasion I'll make the "wrong" decision just based on a gut feeling (like, I hesitate to admit it, I once split tens -- but it won ). It's wrong, and irrational. May the casino then refuse to pay me because to make such a wrong or irrational anti-percentage play which happens to win on one occasion I must be cheating?!

If you're going to punish NS for cheating, I think in fairness you need some evidence of cheating other than "EW believed they cheated and gave a possible explanation, and S play was the wrong play and his reasons unconvincing unless he had UI" [paraphrased]. Weren't there other witnesses? I mean, if you're going to punish them, ask the vugraph operator etc. what he or she saw.

I don't think that an appeals committee, hearing only from EW and NS, was the proper forum for dealing with a disputed accusation of cheating (if there had been an admission, sure). What this decision says is that ANYONE playing against Buratti-Lanzarotti should note any situation in which the "wrong" play is made, and then accuse them of cheating.

Please note, I agree it's quite possible that NS did cheat. But decisions regarding such serious allegations of cheating should not be made on a "EW said - NS said" basis!!

[hotShot]

Where are witnesses when you need them.....

Even at lawsuit there is often nothing more than that what victim and offender have to say. In those cases all that matters is, who judge/jury believe more.
Why are crimes often commited at lonely places ?
Are you suggesting they should get off, if there are able to avoid witnesses and obvious physical evidence?

[whereagles]

epeeist, on Jun 28 2005, 04:30 AM, said:

Does this mean, whenever ANY pair makes an anti-percentage play, their opponents may accuse them of cheating and unless a "good" explanation is given that will be upheld?!

No. But when dummy leans over to take a peek and subsequently makes funny gestures, then the anti-percentage play becomes a little bit suspicious.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on Jun 28 2005, 02:36 AM, said:

[...]James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 33-34:

Experts are also surprisingly bad at what social
scientists call "calibrating" their judgments.  If
your judgments are well calibrated, then you have a
sense of how likely it is that your judgment is
correct.  But experts are much more like normal
people: they routinely overestimate the likelihood
that they're right.[......]
[.....]The only forecasters whose judgments are routinely well
calibrated are expert bridge players and
weathermen.  It rains on 30 percent of the days
when weathermen have predicted a 30 percent chance
of rain.[....]

"Calibrating" is not a good term here (I don't know which is, though).

I wonder if this comparison between currency dealers, physicians, meteorologist and bridge players is fair. After all, bridge players and meteorologist have a tradition of expressing knowledge in terms of probabilites:

If a bridge player says that a given line of play has 75% chance, and it fails, he might still be right (a computer simulation could confirm it).

If a meteorologist says that there's 75% chance that it will be raining and it doesn't, he might still be considered right (at least by his collegues). This is because his estimate is based on a probabilistic model which has been validated in the general case, so it's irelevant if it fails in a particular case.

If a physician says that there's 75% chance that surgery will suceed, and it fails, he will probably be considered wrong. This is for two reasons: first, patients and physicians alike are bad at making decisions based on probabilities. So it doesn't realy matter if the assement is 75% or 95%. In both cases some binary decision (to cut or not) will be made on the basis of the physian's assement, and that decision will "turn out" to be either right or wrong. Second, it is difficult to verify what the probability really was. Maybe if you have 1000 "identical" patients you can verify the assessment that surgery will suceed in appr. 750 cases. But this is not a typical situation. And even in that case, the families of the 250 unlucky patients will say that the physician should have noticed that those cases were not typical.

I would like to believe that bridge players are more honest than other people. But it may have more to do with whether the reader of your message realy wants honest self-assesment. Who wants a physician, politician, judge or military adviser who keeps saying "there's 25% chance that my advice/decision is wrong"?. But a bridge coach, or a meteorologist, can make such statements and keep their job.

[Flame]

Im probebly the only one here who know the israely team and as such i can tell you that i trust them and especially trust bareket who was sitting east who is a great guy (and a good player). I cant imagine him making things up just to win the match, and i dont think he was iimagining either.

[Cascade]

whereagles, on Jun 28 2005, 09:36 PM, said:

epeeist, on Jun 28 2005, 04:30 AM, said:

Does this mean, whenever ANY pair makes an anti-percentage play, their opponents may accuse them of cheating and unless a "good" explanation is given that will be upheld?!

No. But when dummy leans over to take a peek and subsequently makes funny gestures, then the anti-percentage play becomes a little bit suspicious.

Dummy denied taking a peak.

[whereagles]

Cascade, on Jun 28 2005, 11:14 AM, said:

whereagles, on Jun 28 2005, 09:36 PM, said:

epeeist, on Jun 28 2005, 04:30 AM, said:

Does this mean, whenever ANY pair makes an anti-percentage play, their opponents may accuse them of cheating and unless a "good" explanation is given that will be upheld?!

No. But when dummy leans over to take a peek and subsequently makes funny gestures, then the anti-percentage play becomes a little bit suspicious.

Dummy denied taking a peak.

Of course he did... No one who's trying to get away with murder is going to confess the crime

[Deanrover]

Big article in the Daily Telegraph today,

Quote

The cut-throat competitiveness that can lurk beneath the civilised surface of bridge was exposed yesterday when two of the game's leading players were disqualified from an international championship for allegedly cheating.


In an apparently brazen display of card sharkery, one of the Italian pair was accused of peeking at his opponent's cards and then signalling the information to his partner with his fingers.

The professional players, Andrea Buratti, 55, and Massimo Lanzarotti, 46, were playing an Israeli team in the European Transnational Teams Championship in Tenerife, which aside from the world championships is bridge's most prestigious competition.

In May, the pair, who were members of a team financed by Maria-Teresa Lavazza, the wife of the owner of the Lavazza coffee company, won the world's biggest money bridge tournament, the million-dollar Cavendish contest in Las Vegas.

In 1995 and 1997 they were on the Italy team that won the European Championships but, despite a remarkable run of success at international tournaments since, they had never again been selected for the national team.

Their disqualification, the biggest scandal to hit bridge since a British pair were thrown out of the 1965 world championships for also allegedly indulging in underhand finger play, has transfixed the 500 top players gathered in Tenerife.

In the final match of the qualifying stages of the competition, the Lavazza team needed a convincing win against Barel, an Israeli team, to progress into the knockouts. Early in the match, Ilan Bareket, 35, of the Israeli team, summoned the referee and claimed that Massimo Lanzarotti had been guilty of foul play.

He said that Lanzarotti, sitting in the dummy seat and therefore technically out of the play at that point, had looked at Bareket's hand and then surreptitiously conveyed information about the cards to Buratti with a finger signal.



The crucial intelligence - that Bareket had three of the remaining four trumps - was allegedly given by Lanzarotti placing three fingers of his right hand over his left wrist as he rested his arms on the table, said Bareket.

Buratti subsequently played "against the odds" - a risky course of action without knowing opponents' hands - and won, helping to provide his team with a 25-2 victory. Asked at an appeals hearing chaired by Bill Pencharz, a London lawyer, why he had done so, Buratti was apparently unable to give a satisfactory explanation.

In its official ruling, the contest's appeals committee said it found the reasons given by the player for his play unconvincing and the nature of these explanations by a competent player self-incriminating. Its decision was greeted with applause by the 80 team captains.

One thing I have always wondered is:

In athletics there are certain competitors who all other athletes "know" are using illegal performance enhancing steroids, but can not prove it. Is there a similar situation in brige, where certain top pairs are at least widely suspected of cheating? Not looking for names here, but would be interested if a WC player could tell me if such suspicion exists.

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Jun 28 2005, 07:23 AM, said:

Of course he did... No one who's trying to get away with murder is going to confess the crime

Well, I see, ia.) if he says he looked , he must be guilty and b.) if he said he didn't he must be quilty. I suspect if he refused to answer since because if he answered a. or b. he would be guilty too. They could have used you in the Salam Witch trials, you would make a great prosecutor for them.

Having said that, a number of curious things. Despite bieng hand 23 of 24, it was played earlier, so I guess they started with the higher number boards. Playing an inferior line early seems less likely, I had assumed this was the next to last board to play. Second, the london paper above says the ruling was "greeted with applause by the 80 team captains." I assume this statement is true, and the fact that the other team captains responded with applause suggest many must have suspected this pair for some time. This is speculation on my part, but applause for a conviction on such little evidence? Such a reaction from ones peers give us something to think about.

[Winstonm]

Perhaps the time has arrived to videotape important matches.

The cost should not be prohibitive and no longer would we have to rely on "he said, she said" type testimony. Evidence of this sort would also reduce, I'm sure, the future costs of the lawsuits stemming from the allegations/decisions.

WinstonM

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, here's my own contribution to the BLML debate...
------------------------------------

Regardless of whether Buratti and Lanzarotti are guilty or innocent, this latest cheating scandal is a disgrace. There is such a thing as bad publicity and this is a classic example. I don't want to comment on whether the Italian pair is guilty or innocent. I doubt that we will ever have sufficient information to know definitively.

With this said and done, I would like to focus attention an an area where we can make some concert statements: Its high time that the WBF started insisting on some “real” security for these events. In the past, I have strongly advocated that significant tournaments such as the Bermuda Bowl, the Vanderbilt, and the Cavendish should be conducted using an electronic playing environment. Teams would continue to gather in a common physical location, however, the event would be conducting using personal computers networked into a Local Area Network (LAN). All of the North players could be physically segregated in one room. The South players in another... Packet sniffers could be used to monitor network traffic and look for out of band communications.

Implemented properly, this type of system would result in enormous improvements in physical security. The system would also yield a number of other significant benefits. The most significant would be

1. Improving Online VuGraph by an order of magnitude
2. Providing directors with perfect information regarding tempo
3. Eliminating a wide variety of mechanical errors such as fouled movements and misduplications.

In the past, I've heard a number of arguments against such a system and found most of them to be very non-compelling. A number of pros have explained how they need to play face-to-face in order to preserve their “table-feel”. We'll, we now see where preserving “table feel” gets yah...

As I noted earlier, I doubt that we'll every know with 100% certainty whether Buratti - Lanzarotti are innocent or guilty. I do believe that its clear that the tournament organizers were negligent and failed to implement appropriate security measures.

[whereagles]

Ben, just because a defendant claims he's innocent, it doesn't mean he actually IS innocent. I'm just saying it would be illogical to pledge guilty if defendant wants to be found innocent.. don't you think so? I don't find this to be witchcraft or black magic or whatever you named it.

In the end the matter was subject to trial and the court has judged there was enough evidence that the pair accquired, transmited and used unauthorized information. Regardless of your judgement of the situation... it was not up to you to judge, but to them.

[whereagles]

hrothgar: I'm not sure it will be good publicity for the game to lock people in different rooms to prevent cheating. I think we can improve on the cheating part without going that far. For instance, it should be enough to tape the event or have a tournament director present all the time in important matches.

Besides, one scandal every 50 years seems a pretty good average to me