[the hog]

Cascade, on Oct 16 2009, 07:58 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 16 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 15 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

So, holding your cards under the table when playing against someone who is known to slot, or folding up your cards is "behaving like a moron"? Interesting comment!

Doing it knowing and differently from hand to hand against the same opponents is moronic, at best, and unethical.

My recollection (might be wrong; don't have the book in front of me) is that in The Bridge Bum, Sontag mentions a complaint made by one of his opponents in a major tournament that Sontag folded up his cards on one hand, but didn't always do it. The complaint was that he should do it the same way every time, and Sontag notes in the book that the complainant was correct.

The same Sontag who admits in that book to being reprimanded for initiating cheating accusations that were not upheld against his opponents.

And the same Sontag who browbeat opponents, (Manoppo and Lasut), before a match. Now isn't that cheating?
Anyway, Wayne, that's off topic.

[Cascade]

fred, on Oct 16 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 16 2009, 12:46 AM, said:

So, holding your cards under the table when playing against someone who is known to slot, or folding up your cards is "behaving like a moron"? Interesting comment!

Huh?

Dramatically varying the way one holds one's cards from hand to hand is behaving like a moron.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Watching how the opponents hold their cards is hardly examplary behaviour.

I would have no idea what the normal way that my partner nor opponents hold their cards. The only things that I have ever observed about how any one holds their cards is when an opponent has the cards held so that it is easy to see them without trying to look and in one occasion when an opponent was holding her cards in a manner that her partner could see the faces of her cards.

[fred]

The_Hog, on Oct 16 2009, 01:03 AM, said:

The comment about slotting is a valid one. If you hold your cards under the table against a slotter and you don't against anyone else, you are varying your methods.

If "hand to hand" meant the same thing as "opponent to opponent" and if we were to agree that what you describe constitues "dramatic" then perhaps your comment could be considered valid (though still it would not be relevant).

Quote

One player I knew is ambidextrous. Sometimes he held his cards in the left hand and other times in the right. If anyone wanted to draw conclusions about that, let them.

The only conclusion I would draw would be that either he is not a top player or he is a moron (or maybe he always played behind screens or always held his cards below the table in which cases this would be just as irrelevant as your other comment).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Lobowolf]

The degree to which the R-S supporters are going to defend even the "varying hand positions are fine" subpoint reflects pretty badly on the tenability of the overall position, IMO.

If the Reese comment was "stupid," what was the Truscott comment? I just found it hilarious that in a thread about a dispute between Reese and, well, ANYONE, that someone would throw in an aside about the "anyone" being particularly unpleasant.


I have to call a time-out just for a second, because I can't help feeling that I'm being "Punked," or that the thread's sideline here is some sort of practical joke. Are people (let alone people who comment vehemently on other threads specific to ethics) REALLY taking the position that it's perfectly fine to knowingly hold your cards differently from hand to hand? Poses no ethical problems whatsoever? I mean, I guess if I see it enough times, I'll start to believe that some people might actually have that position, but I'm not quite there yet.

[the hog]

Lobowolf, on Oct 16 2009, 08:17 AM, said:

snipped

I have to call a time-out just for a second, because I can't help feeling that I'm being "Punked," or that the thread's sideline here is some sort of practical joke. Are people (let alone people who comment vehemently on other threads specific to ethics) REALLY taking the position that it's perfectly fine to knowingly hold your cards differently from hand to hand? Poses no ethical problems whatsoever? I mean, I guess if I see it enough times, I'll start to believe that some people might actually have that position, but I'm not quite there yet.

I, for one, see nothing wrong with it.

The comment about Truscott was made, because there are many who believe Truscott had an agenda.
Are you aware that the late Tim Seres publicly challenged Truscott in the Australian Bridge Magazine to a 10,000 pound bet, ( a lot of money in those days), to prove cheating allegations? The bet was never taken up.

[the hog]

"The only conclusion I would draw would be that either he is not a top player or he is a moron"

Well he has played for Australia a few times. Whether or not that makes him a top player is arguable. However he is hardly a moron.
Anyway, I have to do some work.

[Lobowolf]

The_Hog, on Oct 15 2009, 08:29 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 16 2009, 08:17 AM, said:

snipped

I have to call a time-out just for a second, because I can't help feeling that I'm being "Punked," or that the thread's sideline here is some sort of practical joke.  Are people (let alone people who comment vehemently on other threads specific to ethics) REALLY taking the position that it's perfectly fine to knowingly hold your cards differently from hand to hand?  Poses no ethical problems whatsoever?  I mean, I guess if I see it enough times, I'll start to believe that some people might actually have that position, but I'm not quite there yet.

I, for one, see nothing wrong with it.

The comment about Truscott was made, because there are many who believe Truscott had an agenda.
Are you aware that the late Tim Seres publicly challenged Truscott in the Australian Bridge Magazine to a 10,000 pound bet, ( a lot of money in those days), to prove cheating allegations? The bet was never taken up.

What, in theory, would constitute proof after the fact?

[fred]

The_Hog, on Oct 16 2009, 01:30 AM, said:

"The only conclusion I would draw would be that either he is not a top player or he is a moron"

Well he has played for Australia a few times. Whether or not that makes him a top player is arguable. However he is hardly a moron.
Anyway, I have to do some work.

Maybe he is a top bridge player, but if so his behavior is moronic (at least when he is not playing behind screens, not holding his cards under the table, not suffering from some disability that makes it impossible for him to control how he holds his cards...).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

athene, on Oct 15 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

The only compelling evidence would the equivalent of a double-blind trial (as used in drugs testing, etc).

i.e.  give ALL the hand records of the competition to a strong bridge player who doesn't know ANY of the surrounding details.

Then ask him: "which of all these pairs playing in this event are signalling length in the heart suit?"

If that player, JUST from the hand records, says "clearly pair X, playing for team Y, are up to something", then there might be a case.

This is 100% wrong, examination of the hands is in fact the LEAST compelling evidence.

This wasn't talking on the phone while playing on BBO, this was a world championship. Reese and Schapiro were great players, they wouldn't take such blatant actions that it would be obvious something was strange. Examining the hands just leads to arguments and counter arguments about what one who was/wasn't cheating may have been thinking when they chose the action.

Instead try this. Simply look at the pictures in Truscott's book. Note how Reese and Schapiro hold the cards (including when playing with someone other than each other.) Then come up with an explanation for how the cards are being held other than cheating in some way.

That is 100% compelling without even considering the hands themselves.

Maybe they weren't really Reese and Shapiro, but aliens, and that was the normal way to hold cards on their planet. Now that would be compelling!

[Cascade]

I would have thought a player could hold his cards however he liked provided that this was not used as a method to convey information to his partner.

In particular varying how one might hold ones' cards in order to prevent an opponent from gaining an advantage would seem to me to be a sound practice.

[fred]

Cascade, on Oct 16 2009, 01:42 AM, said:

I would have thought a player could hold his cards however he liked provided that this was not used as a method to convey information to his partner.

Maybe the rules say you can, but that doesn't make it any less moronic for a player who should know better to do this.

Here are some other examples of similarly moronic behavior for a top-level player to engage in (which for all I know may be perfectly legal):

- dramatically and constantly varying the way one passes the tray under the screen
- dramatically and constantly varying the way one plays one's cards
- dramatically and constantly varying the wording that one uses to explain the same bid to the opponents

All of these practices could be used for cheating purposes, but obviously people who do these things are not necessarily cheating. What they are certainly doing is arousing suspicion in their opponents (and possibly creating ethical problems for their partners) for no reason.

That is moronic.

Top-level players are supposed to know better. Since I think you aspire to be a top-level player one day, I strongly suggest you learn this lesson (or at least that you make a habit of never doing these things yourself even if you and your co-dog Ron continue to refuse to let go of your respective bones).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mrdct]

I might have to vary my own practices lest I be branded a moron, but I use a few different card holding techniques with some regularity although possibly I can avail myself of Fred's disability defence as I am quite severely short-sighted so with glasses-on I tend to hold my cards under the table as if I hold them too close to my eyes my glasses create a bit of a double-vision effect. But sometimes during the auction I take my glasses off (particularly if I'm experiencing eye-strain or the onset of headache) and then need to hold the cards within about 3 inches of my nose; and I probably fan them out a bit more in that configuration too.

If I'm reasonably confident my opponents aren't slotting, my third technique would be just to hold the cards fairly normally at chest height, usually leaning back in my chair a bit.

I would consider myself ambidextrous as far as which hand I hold my cards in is concerned, but I generally hold them in my right hand and pull cards with my left hand - but during the auction when I usually have a pen in my right hand (written bidding fairly ubiquitous in Oz) or need to keep my right hand free for the bidding box, I probably hold them in my left hand more often. If I have a glass or water or Coke or something in progress the position of the side table might also influence how and in which hand I hold my cards.

It might be a nervous habit thing, but I think I completley fold my hand up between just about every bid and play as I often like to think about things without actually looking at my hand. But I guess that might make me a moron also.

It's been over 16 years since I played in a World Championship (and juniors at that) but I've physically kibitzed several world class event in recent years and whilst I wasn't particularly looking for it at the time I'm sure that I recall seeing several elite players at the very least switching between the below-table and the above-table technique and one American superstar (for whom I wouldn't even entertain the possibility of anything dodgey going on) being one of the most fidgetty players I've ever seen such that I'm sure conspiracy theorists could have a field day with some carefully selected still shots and hand-records.

[mike777]

Again..so do you think the Blue team cheated and cheated often?

Do you think the top three players cheated and cheated often?


Do you lionize the Blue Team?


I see alot of smoke in these posts but the main link question was:

Do you lionize the Blue Team?

If not you seem to agree with Judy's main point....do not lionize the Blue Team.

[mike777]

and it follows with a hand deifying what I vehemently and sarcastically call “The Exalted Blue Team.” True, they featured three of the very best players in the world (Garozzo, Belladonna and Forquet) but I am getting sick and tired of the lionizing of a team that the world of bridge knows cheated for well over a decade, resulting in their fourteen consecutive dirty world championships. THERE IS NOT A TOP PLAYER (who has not self-deluded himself) IN THE WORLD ALIVE THEN OR NOW WHO WOULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FACT. Blame it on their culture, their ego or the fact that their captain Albert Perroux told them in no uncertain terms that if they did not ‘help’ their partner, there were others waiting in the wings to replace them.

[eyhung]

Sadly, I'd have to agree with mrdct on one thing -- all top-class players do not necessarily exhibit professional behavior. Joe Grue in particular has reminded me of a spastic puppet at times, and yet I would be the last to question his ability. Perhaps "moronic" (stupid, doltish) is not quite the right adjective to describe irregular behavior, although I am sure Fred feels that way. How about "inappropriate" or "unprofessional"?

[mrdct]

mike777, on Oct 15 2009, 09:35 PM, said:

Again..so do you think the Blue team cheated and cheated often?

The only honest answer is I don't know and therefore in the absence of proof I'm going to stay in the innocent until proven guilty camp. Having said that, if the alleged contents of the Burgay Tapes coincides with what the Wolffs have reported and an authenticated transcript of same makes its way on to the public record, I would probably be persuaded to switch camps - but even then people have been known to make up stories and talk to people on the phone about falsehoods so I'd probably still like to see a bit more corroborating evidence.

[mike777]

mrdct, on Oct 15 2009, 09:52 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 15 2009, 09:35 PM, said:

Again..so do you think the Blue team cheated and cheated often?

The only honest answer is I don't know and therefore in the absence of proof I'm going to stay in the innocent until proven guilty camp. Having said that, if the alleged contents of the Burgay Tapes coincides with what the Wolffs have reported and an authenticated transcript of same makes its way on to the public record, I would probably be persuaded to switch camps - but even then people have been known to make up stories and talk to people on the phone about falsehoods so I'd probably still like to see a bit more corroborating evidence.

Again you do not answer the main question in the link....you avoid!

Do you lionize the Blue Team?

I do not see you use that word so I assume you agree with Judy.


"but I am getting sick and tired of the lionizing of a team that the world of bridge knows cheated for well over a decade, resulting in their fourteen consecutive dirty world championships. THERE IS NOT A TOP PLAYER (who has not self-deluded himself) IN THE WORLD ALIVE THEN OR NOW WHO WOULD NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FACT."

[mrdct]

eyhung, on Oct 15 2009, 09:46 PM, said:

Sadly, I'd have to agree with mrdct on one thing -- all top-class players do not necessarily exhibit professional behavior.  Joe Grue in particular has reminded me of a spastic puppet at times, and yet I would be the last to  question his ability.

lol - are you sad that you have to agree with me (a fate worse than death in the minds of some) or sad that some top-class players exhibit unprofessional behaviour?

As it happens, Joe Grue was the very player that I was referring to. I will again stress that in the 100 or so hands that I've BBO operated with Joe at the table I've never seen anything remotely unethical, but the little bugger just cannot sit still!

[Jlall]

Wow this thread is amazing.

[mrdct]

mike777, on Oct 15 2009, 10:04 PM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 15 2009, 09:52 PM, said:

mike777, on Oct 15 2009, 09:35 PM, said:

Again..so do you think the Blue team cheated and cheated often?

The only honest answer is I don't know and therefore in the absence of proof I'm going to stay in the innocent until proven guilty camp. Having said that, if the alleged contents of the Burgay Tapes coincides with what the Wolffs have reported and an authenticated transcript of same makes its way on to the public record, I would probably be persuaded to switch camps - but even then people have been known to make up stories and talk to people on the phone about falsehoods so I'd probably still like to see a bit more corroborating evidence.

Again you do not answer the main question in the link....you avoid!

Do you lionize the Blue Team?

I do not see you use that word so I assume you agree with Judy.

I have to admit I that I needed to find an American dictionary to look up "Lionize" as it wasn't in my vocabulary and nor was it in any English dictionary I could find. I see that it is defined as:

"To look on or treat (a person) as a celebrity" American Heritage Dictionary 4th Ed.

I think it would be quite silly to suggest that within the fairly narrow bridge community, a team that won a dozen world championships by whatever means, would not attract some degree of celebrity status. By any reasonably definition, Garozzo, Belladonna and Forquet, et al are clearly bridge celebrities. They are written about in the gossip pages, people like to get their photo taken with them and people like to buy and read their books. As it happens I'm reading the gossip pages right now, had a photo of myself taken with one of them earlier this year and Forquet's Bridge with the Blue Team is one of my favourite books - so shoot me I've just lionized them I guess.

Now that doesn't mean there aren't a few (if not many) unanswered questions about how they achieved all of those world championships, but nobody has been able to put forward any credible evidence of cheating so I will continue to give them the benefit of the doubt.