[kense]

doofik, on Jul 19 2005, 02:01 PM, said:

In a clumsy way, my questions were the same

doofik

[QUOTE]I am waiting too for an answer, does no one know?

[inquiry]

kense, on Jul 21 2005, 12:41 PM, said:

doofik, on Jul 19 2005, 02:01 PM, said:

In a clumsy way, my questions were the same

doofik

I am waiting too for an answer, does no one know?

MY question to everyone...if ACBL were suspicious for so long, needed to have a recorder monitor therir every bid and play WHY WERE THEY ALLOWED TO CONTINUALLY PLAY TOGETHER?

No doubt because no had PROOF they were cheating (or even alleged proof).

And was the recorder in Tenerife watching? As I hear it the players were alone in the room.

If there had been a recorder, it would have been mentioned in the record (recorder saw this, recorder didn't see it). It is safe to say, no there was no recorder in the room.

Will they EVER be allowed to play together AGAIN for any country or sponsor?

I don't think anyone knows.

One more very important question will they be stripped of their Cavendish and Vandebilt victories?

I doubt it. They were not found to have cheated in those. They maybe did, maybe didn't, but where is the evidence?

[kense]

[QUOTE] I find it amazing in this day and age we can suspect someone for so long, let them play, watch them occasionally and in very important tournaments leave them unattended. Maybe Lavazza is more powerful in Europe than we think, otherwise how can this have gone on for so long. Even now, no one knows what really happened? Or what will happen?

[mike777]

kense, on Jul 22 2005, 10:14 AM, said:

Quote

I find it amazing in this day and age we can suspect someone for so long, let them play, watch them occasionally and in very important tournaments leave them unattended. Maybe Lavazza is more powerful in Europe than we think, otherwise how can this have gone on for so long. Even now, no one knows what really happened? Or what will happen?

Haha

At first this would seem to be unbelievable but in USA we may let suspected serial murders and pedophiles for many years do their deeds and not watch them or stop them from doing their thing why should bridge be any different.

The world stood by while millions were killed in Africa or the Killing Fields of Asia or the Balkans for years, why not bridge?

Look at Dafur now.
Even now, no one knows what really happened? Or what will happen?

your quote.

[kense]

mike777, on Jul 22 2005, 11:45 AM, said:

kense, on Jul 22 2005, 10:14 AM, said:

Quote

I find it amazing in this day and age we can suspect someone for so long, let them play, watch them occasionally and in very important tournaments leave them unattended. Maybe Lavazza is more powerful in Europe than we think, otherwise how can this have gone on for so long. Even now, no one knows what really happened? Or what will happen?

Haha

At first this would seem to be unbelievable but in USA we may let suspected serial murders and pedophiles for many years do their deeds and not watch them or stop them from doing their thing why should bridge be any different.

The world stood by while millions were killed in Africa or the Killing Fields of Asia or the Balkans for years, why not bridge?

Look at Dafur now.
Even now, no one knows what really happened? Or what will happen?

your quote.

YES...maybe a lot of bets were made on this pair and lots of money made. I cant believe they were allowed to play in Cavensish unless BIG money changed hands. And you thought only horse racing was fixed;-)) I am sure we will see them playing again as I havent heard of them being banned just suspended in Teneriffe...IF all players refused to play against them they wouldnt be able to play. Those hundreds applauding the committees decision, did any of them refuse to play against them, I wonder.

[doofik]

I think that the big issue is who will sponsor them now? Are they willing to invest in themselves to play?

doofik

[mike777]

doofik, on Jul 22 2005, 12:46 PM, said:

I think that the big issue is who will sponsor them now?  Are they willing to invest in themselves to play?

doofik

Strongly disagree. I do not think this is the big issue.

Here is a bigger one.

99%+ of us have never read the bridge laws or if we did remember or fully understand them?
How many of us break the laws and what is bridge going to do about it?
How can we say we do not break the law when the vast majority of us do not know all the laws? We are simply guessing and hoping.

This reminds me of all the people who say they are great drivers who never break the law and they have no idea what 50% of the law is. How the heck can we be so certain when we do not even know the laws.

See full disclosure or telling the opp our implicit partnership agreements as one never ending issue.

[doofik]

And I think that this broad approach to the topic at hand doesn't really do it much good If I'll tell you that I disclose all I know about a bid, you'll come back at nuances. This will lead to nowhere land

I do know laws as they apply to drivers, so what?

doofik

[mike777]

doofik, on Jul 22 2005, 01:36 PM, said:

And I think that this broad approach to the topic at hand doesn't really do it much good    If I'll tell you that I disclose all I know about a bid, you'll come back at nuances.  This will lead to nowhere land

I do know laws as they apply to drivers, so what?

doofik

Well I would bet my house you do not fully know all the driving laws and fully understand them. Who the heck does? There must be a thousand and one of them with many nuances.
Same thing for bridge, hard to fully follow all the laws when 99.9% of the 25 million bridge players do not fully know and understand them. Me included.

See law 40D and 40A just for starters

My tiny point is only there are big issues and then there is life .
We all break the law and are guilty or at least make a conscious decision to remain ignorant.

[luke warm]

you might be right, mike, but i'll bet that even if a person knows *none* of the laws of duplicate bridge they know not to look into an opp's hand and signal partner what's held

[han]

Agree with Mr Warm. We may not know all the bridge laws, but we all know that dummy is not allowed to signal partner how many diamonds the opponents have.

[keylime]

Ditto.

[Echognome]

From Andrew Robson's column in The Times from the 23rd of July.

Quote

It is telling that the evidence of just one opponent should have sufficed; and telling that thenews of their disqualification was met with cheering and not one "It's outrageous that they should be incriminated on such flimsy evidence." For many have felt that they have been up to no good previously, with judiciously timed coughs being their specialty.

[doofik]

Thank you Echo.

[Fluffy]

inquiry, on Jul 21 2005, 04:58 PM, said:

Will they EVER be allowed to play together AGAIN for any country or sponsor?

I don't think anyone knows.

I can't be sure, but I've heard there was a serious proposal that they would not play anymore in 2 years, and after that, they would never ever play again together.

[mike777]

I see no one, repeat no one, said they agree strongly with me.

I disagree strongly.

The "big issue" in bridge is not tap tap tap 3 times on arm to cheat at bridge.
The "big issue" is not will B&L play again.

I just played a hand against an expert opp who did not alert gambling 3nt on BBO.

I repeat, almost no one (99.9%) seems to know and understand all basic rules of bridge, ACBL or WBF. Yes, we know many of the rules but not some of the basic ones. 99.9% of us have access to the rules but we seem to go out of our way to not read and understand the rules or choose to be ignorant of them.

Just as 99.9% of us choose to not read or fully understand or ignore one or more of the safety, environmental, or other of our vehicle/driving rules.

Perhaps one of the great mysteries of life is how the heck more of us are not killed on the road of cars/life .

I still think this is the "big issue". "Blades of Grass" Walt W. poem.

[guggie]

But do you seriously mean that you were fooled by the non-alert? Did you expect anybody, let alone an expert, to open a "natural" 3NT?
The goal of traffic rules is to prevent accidents. It needs the cooperation of the traffic users and some laws to achieve it. If you forget something trivial, like putting omn your signal before driving into yr own parking place, and it leads to no harm, nobody will fine you
The goal of alerting in bridge is to attent opps to unexpected meanings of bids. This real goal has to be translated into various laws. If the violating of these laws leads to serious damage of the opponents, the violators should be punished.
A gambling 3NT with a forgotten -routine - alarm does not lead to any damage.
lets play bridge and not play rules.

(Yes I know rules are necessary and I try to follow them)

[kense]

Echognome, on Jul 24 2005, 05:09 PM, said:

From Andrew Robson's column in The Times from the 23rd of July.

Quote

It is telling that the evidence of just one opponent should have sufficed; and telling that thenews of their disqualification was met with cheering and not one "It's outrageous that they should be incriminated on such flimsy evidence." For many have felt that they have been up to no good previously, with judiciously timed coughs being their specialty.

I have heard that also, the coughing at various times was most prominant in the Cavendish..

[Al_U_Card]

Wow, I have spent 2 hours reading this thread and I have only 2 words to offer.....sodium pentathol.

[luke warm]

mike777, on Jul 25 2005, 12:54 AM, said:

I see no one, repeat no one, said they agree strongly with me.

I disagree strongly.

The "big issue" in bridge is not tap tap tap 3 times on arm to cheat at bridge.
The "big issue" is not will B&L play again.

I just played a hand against an expert opp who did not alert gambling 3nt on BBO.

I repeat, almost no one (99.9%) seems to know and understand all basic rules of bridge, ACBL or WBF. Yes, we know many of the rules but not some of the basic ones. 99.9% of us have access to the rules but we seem to go out of our way to not read and understand the rules or choose to be ignorant of them.

Just as 99.9% of us choose to not read or fully understand or ignore one or more of the safety, environmental, or other of our vehicle/driving rules.

but mike, i think you're talking about a different subject.. your expert who failed to alert 3nt, do you think he was purposely cheating?... those of us who don't know all the rules of bridge, when we inadvertantly break one are we cheating?

to me there's a big difference between purposely breaking a law, to gain advantage, and doing so out of ignorance... yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse... however, if i break a law thru ignorance, only a total dork would call me a cheater