[inquiry]

whereagles, on Jun 28 2005, 09:15 AM, said:

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.

First, he didn't say rather he was innocent or guilty, he said he didn't look. This was a simple "factual" statement that may or may not be true.

Second, they were not tried in a court. They were taken before a committee, and a committee found enough cause to issue sanctions. This is quite a difference from a court. In fact, in a court, where proof beyond a "reasonable doubt" is the requirement, this "case" has no chance of a guilty verdict based upon what we have heard so far EVEN if the reported events are 100% accurate.

The "good" news is that the bridge committees don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt." When there is an infraction, or an alleged infraction (say a hesitation), they rule based upon what an majority of liked skilled players would do in this situation. Here, they rule an infraction occured (dummy looked into East hand) and then dummy may have transmitted this informtion to South. If there was such an infraction (lets call it UI), what would the average expert south do without this UI? Why they would play AK of diamnods. This kind of ruling leads to adjusted scores all the time (with hesitations and the like).

But here to asume dummy passed UI to south, you have to go one step futher.You have to assume that this transmission was intentional and in violation of all the tenets of the game.... ie cheating. So there is no simple way to adjust the score on the board to 6D-1. If the rule UI, then they have no choice to rule that cheating occured. In 99% of UI cases, committees rule that without admission that the player took advantage of UI, it is just that they can't be put into the position to gain from it, so they must take the normal line. In this case, to rule UI is to de facto declare cheating occurred.

Quote

Regardless of your judgement of the situation... it was not up to you to judge, but to them.

Well, I haven't judged them, I have judged the process. I have never said they were innocent or guilty. What we are talking about here is the process of catching cheaters. Is one hand like this, with one "observation" enough proof of guilt. In the committees eye it was. In my eyes, I think it needs soooo much more. What is not stated but now is implied by the applause is that there is more we have not been told. Time will tell. But you should realize that they (the committee) will not be the final "judge" of this in a legal sense. This may well end up in court and when it does, the legal system will surely use a higher standand that what was applied here.

Glad this wasn;t an ACBL event, our legal bills are high enough already

[cherdano]

Well, I think the committee made essentially a psychological call on the credibility of the players in the hearings. While I have some nagging doubts about this (I think it is a well-known psychological phenomenon that an honest person accused of lying/cheating etc. can start defending himself irrationally and acting like a true liar), I am sure they didn't take this decision easy, and I also think that this psychological evidence is hard to transmit via the one-page write up that we have read.

Btw, something peculiar that hasn't been mentioned much is the tank by declarer after leading the ♦J and RHO following smoothly. Did he really suspect to gain information from the tempo of a world class defender who has had quite some time looking at dummy preparing himself to what he obviously knew would be the crucial trick of this hand? I cannot imagine any world class player would even consider leading the J and then taking the K in that situation. (Unless he knows diamonds are 3-1.)

Arend

[hrothgar]

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

These types of issues come to the fore-front every 50 years, however, the issue of cheating is endemic to bridge. Look at the BBO forums and see how many threads revolce arround accusations of cheating or whether its possible to do a better job detecting cheats. If we restrict ourselves to "top level" play, there are any number of incidents involving either cheating or accusations of cheating. Leading pros have been accusing one another of cheating for decades. it doesn't do the game any good when Lew Mathe/John Swanson/Tobias Stone/Bob Hamman starts arguing that team XYZ is full of cheats. We could HOPE that players behave themselves better however, however, I prefer to focus on something that I can control - namely the process...

Equally significant, the fallout from these incidents can be extreme. B-L won the Cavendish, bringing home lots of money both for them and their sponsors. Do anyone believe that the cheating accusation in Tenerife doesn't raise issues whether the pair coudl have been cheating in one of the big money tournaments?

>For instance, it should be enough to tape the event or have a tournament director >present all the time in important matches.

The system that I propose is MUCH more secure, while also producing a wide number of additonal benefits.

[doofik]

Speaking of B-L's 2005 Cavendish win, am I the only one who remembers Bocchi-Duboin's fiasco against this pair, where they've found their Heart fit and played 4S in a 4-2 fit going down 2 when 4H+5 is a no brainer? Didn't then commentators scoff at the idea of something untoward going on and dismiss this action as "they're also human"?

doofik

[cherdano]

Richard, the main reason against your suggestions is very simple: Many many players would simply enjoy bridge far less when they were completely separated from their opponents and partner. Since there is no reason to drastically change playing environment just to make it more difficult (don't tell me it would be impossible to cheat if partner and me were sitting with our own laptop in different rooms!! it would just be technically more challenging) for the few cheaters among the millions of bridge players, please push your pet peeve independently of this (e.g. in a separate thread).

Arend

[doofik]

Justin,

All I am saying is, things look a bit a foggy where B-L are concerned. Yes, it could have been the tiredness and nerves that B-D were reacting to. I don't know and I'm not accusing, however, it did happen.

doofik

P.S. I also hold B-D in highest regard, so this had been so out of character for them that it stuck in my mind.

[whereagles]

"inquiry" said:

he didn't say rather he was innocent or guilty, he said he didn't look.

Well, actually in this case "not taking a peek" implies "innocent" for obvious reasons. (Though "taking a peek" doesn't necessarily imply "guilty".)

"inquiry" said:

But you should realize that they (the committee) will not be the final "judge" of this in a legal sense. This may well  end up in court and when it does, the legal system will surely use a higher standand that what was applied here.

Are you saying a legal court of law can judge the cheating accusation better than a bridge appeals committee?

[Chamaco]

Jlall, on Jun 28 2005, 02:09 PM, said:

Bocchi and Duboin are one of the most honest pairs I have ever played against. Let's not associate what happened with B-L with Bocchi and Duboin. If they were such great friends isn't it unlikely Bocchi would say the things that he did?

It's hard to define B-D and B-L as "friends".

Some years ago, Buratti Lanzarotti went to play with the national team of Spain because they felt unfairly excluded from the Blue Team and it's easy to imagine this does not do good to their relationship with other top italians.

"Rivalry" (hope this is the correct term in english, check out on Babelfish "rivalità", the italian word ) is a better term.

BTW I have very high consideration of Lanzarotti, not because he is italian (there are a few other italian players for which I would not say the same thing).

Just my 2 cents

[42]

reisig, on Jun 27 2005, 10:03 PM, said:

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.

These are also my thoughts. Does anyone know more facts now? I still cannot (or better do not want to) believe that such strong players need cheating and invent a kind of system, no! But it may prove another time that I am naive.
To be a member of the appeal's committee must have been some horror...
Caren

[Flame]

42, on Jun 28 2005, 10:01 AM, said:

I still cannot (or better do not want to) believe that such strong players need cheating and invent a kind of system, no! But it may prove another time that I am naive.
To be a member of the appeal's committee must have been some horror...
Caren

sometimes being very talented is what drive players to cheat.
Bridge is a game of chances and its a game of which you cant use your talent to full potential on many hands, cheating helpss you use your talent, you are playing a different game then others call it bridge+, a game with more tasks then just bridge ,look at partner signaling, signal yourself, and keep opponents from seeing it,its also takes a great acting talent, and you have to be a cold player not to get nervous cheating, this mean you have bigger field to use your talent.
This is my thory based on knowing one super talented kid (maybe the most talented in my country) who was caught cheating.
Im ofcourse against cheating.

[Chamaco]

Jlall, on Jun 28 2005, 03:35 PM, said:

that was my point. that they are not friends.

Sure.
I was supporting your point with specific arguments.

[cherdano]

Chamaco, on Jun 28 2005, 04:52 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jun 28 2005, 03:35 PM, said:

that was my point. that they are not friends.

Sure.
I was supporting your point with specific arguments.

Shhh. Now the two of you start this agreeing game too...Not even in a thread about cheating accusations can we have some controversy...the world is getting so boring...

[inquiry]

whereagles, on Jun 28 2005, 10:19 AM, said:

Are you saying a legal court of law can judge the cheating accusation better than a bridge appeals committee?

What I was saying addressed the following point in your earlier post

Quote

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.

They were not in court, and a judge did not judge them. They went before a committtee and the committee found enough evidence to take action. This does not mean the committee was right (or wrong) in their assessment. But it was not COURT, and enough evidence here is speculative at best.

The courts may just deal with the question were the pair given due process.The answer to that is probably yes. Clearly a court will not judge issues of "Bridge", but a WBF panel may very well dig deeper. I didn't notice any world class players on the committee did I over look one?

Anyway. somehting I find amusing is the credit given to the statement that diamonds are always splitting badly in this tournment. I sure hope teh proceedings were taped, because that had to be said in joking manner, to bring a little humor to a serious situation. This statement seems now to be the lynch pin of the case, proving he had no answer for why he took this line of play. No World Class player would say such a thing in seriousness.

Further he provided several reasons for taking his line. HE needed to win by 20 VP and this was last set and the score was close (now that we know they played this board early rather than late). West asked many questions about the location of the heart king, something that seems odd (still seems odd to me). The odds of finding QT, QTx or Qxxx or QTxx onside versus 2-2 or 1-3 off sdie with stiff queen, while inferior is not THAT inferior if they really need a lot of big swings in a short set of boards to be totally outrageous that you might try for this, expecially given the grilling about the heart king.

If the committee really relied on the bad diamond split quote to base their ruling, the tape better show it was said in seriousness... I doubt that it was.

[omeroj]

I think that the bridge appeals committee has reason, also I would have voted for the 18 to 0.

Omero

[whereagles]

Ben, I really don't understand what you're saying... but never mind.

[david_c]

inquiry, on Jun 28 2005, 05:13 PM, said:

Anyway. somehting I find amusing is the credit given to the statement that diamonds are always splitting badly in this tournment. I sure hope teh proceedings were taped, because that had to be said in joking manner, to bring a little humor to a serious situation.

I don't see why this can't have been serious. If you're contemplating making an anti-percentage play, and you're unsure whether it's the right thing to do, then why shouldn't you take into account how the diamonds have been breaking throughout the tournament? It's a bit like playing for the queen to lie over the jack in a two-way finesse situation. Mathematically, there's no basis for it at all, but if you're slightly superstitious then these sorts of things might genuinely affect your reasoning.

[McBruce]

The diamonds breaking badly comment is by no means the only silly ailbi presented by B-L. This is what I wrote yesterday on rgb:

...

Possibly the best evidence here is the silly (I'm being charitable here) alibis given by declarer (South) and dummy (North):

-- North explained that all through the day, when dummy, he had laid both arms on the table and rested his head on them.

-- (South) "Diamonds are always badly divided in this tournament."

-- North told the Committee he had only 20% vision in his left eye, and the red honours were all the same to him from that side.

...and yet...

-- When confronted with East's statement, North denied that he had looked at East's cards.

...leading one to naturally wonder why the previous statement was even made! And then we have the obligatory shocked team official:

-- The Coach of North/South, in name of their Captain (who was absent), explained that he ... had never heard allegations of this kind in 30 years' work for the federation and this particular team.

It all seems like 1965 all over again, doesn't it? Where have we come in the meantime? One side accuses, the other side denies: the Committee decides based on who they believe and whether they would lead the J♦. Nobody seems to care about whether the gestures were actually made, because even with screens and bid-boxes that is still completely unprovable.

As long as the playing conditions are as they are, some cheating, and some allegations of cheating, will continue. We'll never have a provable case no matter how much indirect evidence we collect. Wouldn't it be better if we had some video to look at, or at least a kibitzer or two to ask? No other sport allows its major championships to be played incognito, with the officials on call.

...

(North, Lanzarotti, was dummy.)

"North explained that all through the day, when dummy, he had laid both arms on the table and rested his head on them." I assume this explanation followed some sort of question about the position of his arms. My next question would be "from this position, how on earth did you manage to play the cards from dummy when called by declarer? Telekinesis?"

On the question of looking at his screenmate's hand, we have this: "When confronted with East's statement, North denied that he had looked at East's cards." However, Lanzarotti also felt the need to add that "he had only 20% vision in his left eye, and the red honours were all the same to him from that side." Maybe he only leaned over far enough to look with his left eye, but wait: We had the A♥ lead and a discouraging 8♥ (I assume it was discouraging as West asked several questions before switching at trick two) from East. Assuming from this declarer has the KQ♥, from North's point of view, what other outstanding red honour is there?

Don't get me wrong--I would much prefer having a neutral kibitzer's testimony or a videotape as evidence than the statements from both sides and one antipercentage play, even in this case when the accused's alibis are not quite up to the standard of "America's Dumbest Criminals."