[fred]

Apparently I failed to dot the i's and cross the t's in all the posts I have made in this thread and, as a result, apparently the point I was trying to make has become lost.

We started talking about how Reese and Shapiro held their cards (different unnatural and uncomfotable finger-configurations on every deal with the cards held in a position such that each player could see the way that his partner was holding his hand).

I claimed (and still claim) that any top-level player who did this (intentionally of course - people don't hold their cards this way by accident) would be behaving moronically, even if such a person was not cheating.

If you can't see why this is true then I am sorry, but I am done trying to explain what really should be obvious to any experienced player.

I was not talking about:

- people with poor eyesight who vary the position of their cards due to lighting conditions

- people who sometimes choose to hold their hands below the table out of concern that the opponents might otherwise see their cards

- people who do whatever it is they feel like doing behind screens when their partners can't see what they are doing

- people who are unable to control their own nervous energy

In an attempt to try to avoid insulting someone else, I will state the above list is not meant to be complete.

To those I have managed to (unintentionally) insult already with my repeated use of the words "moron" and "moronic", I apologize and hope you now understand the point I have been trying to make.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

"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."




Fair enough...you have no credible evidence and lionize them....Judy does not agree......


I think posters forget this is really the mainpoint of Judy's rants.


Again Bobby seems to suggest, as I understand his posts, the blue team cheated.....the three top players cheated often......but they are top players/great all time players....but Bobby does not lionize the Blue team.

[Trinidad]

mike777, on Oct 16 2009, 06:15 AM, said:

I think posters forget this is really the mainpoint of Judy's rants.


Again Bobby seems to suggest, as I understand his posts, the blue team cheated.....the three top players cheated often......but they are top players/great all time players....but Bobby does not lionize the Blue team.

Bobby is free to decide who he lionizes.

But he isn't (or should I write "shouldn't be?) free to accuse the Blue Team of cheating without showing evidence.

What measures are the ACBL/USBA/WBF supposed to take now?

Rik

[iviehoff]

mike777, on Oct 16 2009, 03:40 AM, said:

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.

This is exactly the same claim that appeared repeatedly on Judy Wolff's site. And it's not going to convince anyone not already convinced unless you can evidence it. It sounds like it ought to be an easy thing to evidence - lots of people believe it, apparently, so show me them saying it. I also mistrust people people making "self-evident" claims in capital letters, etc, because claims presented in this way frequently turn out to be delusions - not logic, but experience.

But the absence of any attempt to collect or present such evidence that so many people do believe this, and the lack of any description of what is meant by "cheating" makes me suspect that this is actually largely a semantic argument over what "cheating" might be. David Stevenson described the recent Helgemo et al incident as "cheating" - agreeing a fake result of a league match they didn't have time to play to the satisfaction of both teams - and while he was technically correct, it wasn't what most people would call "cheating at bridge".

The most effective British football (soccer) team manager (persuasive statistical analysis demonstrates how uniquely extraordinary were his achievements), the late Brian Clough, used to say that Leeds United, then one of the most economically powerful and successful football teams in Europe (but much reduced in recent times), "cheated". What he meant was that they played negative football with "professional fouls" that he thought was an unethical way to play the game. The reality was that within the laws of football at the time and the way the game is controlled, it was an effective way to play the game. You weren't supposed to do it, but given the available detection, identification and sanctions, on balance it was advantageous in the appropriate circumstances. There have been some minor adjustments to various things since then, but until football comes up with its own version of bridge's screens, ie video refereeing, it will, to some extent, carry on. In other words, Clough didn't like it, and it isn't terribly ethical; but nearly everyone does it to some degree because it is effective and on average you profit from it.

Wolff is the man who has invented the term "convention disruption", which is not actually an offence against the laws of bridge, though Wolff carries on as though it is. So I already have some precedent in believing that Wolff might have somewhat different views from others as to what breaking the laws of bridge, ie cheating, might be.

So I'm inclined to believe that all that Wolff is actually saying is that the Italians were taking advantage of the fact that there weren't screens by reading each other's mannerisms, and weren't too careful about covering their mannerisms up. I don't find that a very interesting kind of cheating, rather the kind of thing that was surely widespread before the advent of screens. If he wants me to believe something more than that, then he, or someone on his behalf, had better be clearer about what he is saying.

This post has been edited by iviehoff: 2009-October-16, 02:56

[gnasher]

Lobowolf, on Oct 16 2009, 01:32 AM, said:

Is the general consensus on Rex-Taylor (from the "innocent" camp) that he just made up the explanation to get attention?

Rex-Taylor never substantiated his claims, and his story seemed quite hard to believe. His claims were greeted with scepticism by people knew Reese (whatever they thought about the original allegations), because it seemed so unlikely that Reese would destroy his own reputation, even posthumously, because Rex-Taylor seemed such an odd choice of person for Reese to confide in, and because if Reese really did want to make some great revelation he would have provided his messenger with something he could present as evidence.

That doesn't have any bearing on the question of Reese and Shapiro's guilt or innocence: nobody would convict them on the basis of Rex-Taylor's claims, and even if he made it all up that doesn't make then innocent.

[gnasher]

iviehoff, on Oct 16 2009, 09:26 AM, said:

the recent Helgemo/Helness incident

Helness wasn't involved (unless you're talking about a different incident).

[iviehoff]

gnasher, on Oct 16 2009, 09:44 AM, said:

iviehoff, on Oct 16 2009, 09:26 AM, said:

the recent Helgemo/Helness incident

Helness wasn't involved (unless you're talking about a different incident).

You are correct, Helness wasn't involved. I'll edit the original post if it lets me.

[iviehoff]

The other thing this "the Italians must have been cheating" reminds me of is when decent backgammon programs came out. Since the same computer provided the dice rolls as played against you, a lot of people became convinced they won by either fiddling the dice or having prior knowledge of what the dice would roll. In beating you, the programs often seemed so damn lucky.

But good play in backgammon is retaining flexibility so that more rolls will be good rolls for you, and reducing your opponent's options so that less rolls are good for your opponent. So actually the programs were just a lot better at playing the odds than most humans. They weren't fiddling the dice, or getting prior knowledge of the dice, at all, they were just playing better. But people took a lot of convincing. Statistics showed they weren't fiddling the dice. Analysis also showed that they always played the same move in the same position, so that they didn't have prior knowledge of the dice. Open source code such as Gnu Backgammon, as strong as the other programs, also demonstrated that they weren't fiddling the dice.

[the hog]

iviehoff
Good sensible posts.

[hrothgar]

iviehoff, on Oct 16 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

So I'm inclined to believe that all that Wolff is actually saying is that the Italians were taking advantage of the fact that there weren't screens by reading each other's mannerisms, and weren't too careful about covering their mannerisms up. I don't find that a very interesting kind of cheating, rather the kind of thing that was surely widespread before the advent of screens. If he wants me to believe something more than that, then he, or someone on his behalf, had better be clearer about what he is saying.

Here is a direct quote from Wolff

Quote

A situation that I haven’t told yet occurred in 1983 in Stockholm. We were the finalist team playing them in a 176 board final. The scores were always close throughout, but with about 64 boards to go, I talked to Benito (after hearing G2 from my spies) that when they weren’t playing against Hamman and me, both of them took cigarette lighters to the screened tables. I asked Benito (in a stairwell between floors) to please stop bringing lighters to the table with them. He looked quizzical and I then offered, Bob and I also will promise to not making any noise whereupon he made what is to me a worthwhile quote, “I’m not worried about either one of you and never have been”. In any event, he agreed and the noises stopped and we were very happy and totally thrilled to have won the match by 5 IMP’s thanks to the last two hands of the match.

His claims extend quite a bit further than "reading each other's mannerisms"

[nige1]

When discussing sensitive and emotive topics like cheating, I feel that we should eschew ad hominem attacks as far as possible. Proven cheats themselves may be fair game but we shouldn't stigmatize those with whom we disagree as "in denial", "inexperienced", "insane", "moron", "nasty piece of work" and so on. It seems especially counter-productive to direct such invective at those whom we hope to persuade.

[gnasher]

Nigel, you do know that this is the Internet, don't you?

[pooltuna]

fred, on Oct 15 2009, 11:00 PM, said:

Apparently I failed to dot the i's and cross the t's in all the posts I have made in this thread and, as a result, apparently the point I was trying to make has become lost.

We started talking about how Reese and Shapiro held their cards (different unnatural and uncomfotable finger-configurations on every deal with the cards held in a position such that each player could see the way that his partner was holding his hand).

I claimed (and still claim) that any top-level player who did this (intentionally of course - people don't hold their cards this way by accident) would be behaving moronically, even if such a person was not cheating.

If you can't see why this is true then I am sorry, but I am done trying to explain what really should be obvious to any experienced player.

I was not talking about:

- people with poor eyesight who vary the position of their cards due to lighting conditions

- people who sometimes choose to hold their hands below the table out of concern that the opponents might otherwise see their cards

- people who do whatever it is they feel like doing behind screens when their partners can't see what they are doing

- people who are unable to control their own nervous energy

In an attempt to try to avoid insulting someone else, I will state the above list is not meant to be complete.

To those I have managed to (unintentionally) insult already with my repeated use of the words "moron" and "moronic", I apologize and hope you now understand the point I have been trying to make.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Just be at the firing squad meeting at sunrise as the guest of honor

[jjbrr]

Trinidad, on Oct 16 2009, 03:13 AM, said:

mike777, on Oct 16 2009, 06:15 AM, said:

I think posters forget this is really the mainpoint of Judy's rants.


Again Bobby seems to suggest, as I understand his posts, the blue team cheated.....the three top players cheated often......but they are top players/great all time players....but Bobby does not lionize the Blue team.

Bobby is free to decide who he lionizes.

But he isn't (or should I write "shouldn't be?) free to accuse the Blue Team of cheating without showing evidence.

What measures are the ACBL/USBA/WBF supposed to take now?

Rik

Did you read all the posts in the blog? Wolff does provide evidence. I can't believe you keep saying there is no evidence whatsoever. If you were, on the other hand, to say the evidence he provides is not very convincing, is insufficient, only represents a very, very small number of a very large set of hands played, and also requires the testimony from people whom no one is able to talk to anymore, I'm fairly confident most people, including me, would agree with all of it, perhaps to varying degrees.

But to say his claims are "without evidence," as unconvincing as it may be to you, is completely off the mark. When the prosecutor holds up Exhibit A in court, and you, as the defense, simply say "that isn't evidence," good luck winning a case, even if Exhibit A is something very trivial.

[Lobowolf]

gnasher, on Oct 16 2009, 03:36 AM, said:

That doesn't have any bearing on the question of Reese and Shapiro's guilt or innocence: nobody would convict them on the basis of Rex-Taylor's claims

If true, it has bearing on the question of their guilt or innocence even if it doesn't provide a basis for anyone to conviction. Certainly, the question of whether they were doing anything "dodgy" with their hands has bearing on whether not the cheated, and if Rex-Taylor was telling the truth, then there was an admission that they did something dodgy with their hands. It's not proof, but it is evidence.

[Lobowolf]

fred, on Oct 15 2009, 11:00 PM, said:

I was not talking about:

- people with poor eyesight who vary the position of their cards due to lighting conditions

- people who sometimes choose to hold their hands below the table out of concern that the opponents might otherwise see their cards

- people who do whatever it is they feel like doing behind screens when their partners can't see what they are doing

- people who are unable to control their own nervous energy

In an attempt to try to avoid insulting someone else, I will state the above list is not meant to be complete.

73. D. Variations in Tempo or Manner
1. Inadvertent Variations
It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner.


I'd assume those are decent examples (particularly the eyesight example) of why it's not "always required." Surely, it's the gratuitous variations that are ethically "undesirable."

[gnasher]

Lobowolf, on Oct 16 2009, 03:36 PM, said:

gnasher, on Oct 16 2009, 03:36 AM, said:

That doesn't have any bearing on the question of Reese and Shapiro's guilt or innocence: nobody would convict them on the basis of Rex-Taylor's claims

If true, it has bearing on the question of their guilt or innocence even if it doesn't provide a basis for anyone to conviction. Certainly, the question of whether they were doing anything "dodgy" with their hands has bearing on whether not the cheated, and if Rex-Taylor was telling the truth, then there was an admission that they did something dodgy with their hands. It's not proof, but it is evidence.

I think you misunderstood me. The word "that" in my previous post referred to the general disbelief of Rex-Taylor's claims, not to the claims themselves.

[hrothgar]

Regretfully, I don’t think that it will ever be possible to reach a conclusive resolution to any of the major cheating scandals from year’s part.

• We don’t have adequate record keeping
• Neither the WBF nor the ACBL has much stomach to open up old wounds
• Most of the principles are dead (despite which emotions are still running mighty high)

Absent a deathbed confession from Garozzo or some such, I don’t think that we have much chance of achieving closure.

It seems somewhat silly for folks to be investing time and effort revisiting these old debates. Don’t get me wrong… I am all in favor of taking actions to make cheating at bridge more difficult. However, don’t think that debates over the Blue Team or Reese-Shapiro advance this cause in any substantive fashion.

From my own perspective, the single most powerful tool at our disposal is record keeping. The more hands we have available, the more opportunity there is to apply statistical analysis and data mining techniques. (Obligatory reference to conducting major championships using an electronic playing environment deleted cause no one wants to hear that yet again)

[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.


I speak from personal experience as my late husband, Norman Kay and many dear friends and partners who have since passed on always fought a losing uphill battle at their mercy"






Again I think Judy was just venting about the lionizing of the Blue Team at the expense of her late dead husband among others on her personal Blog site. I think the real story is a 73 year old lady talking about her late and current husbands, not the Blue Team.

I do not think she was attempting to put forward a legal or academic presentation.
If you feel there is not enough evidence ok, she does not based on her conversations with her two husbands. Bobby, Judy's husband agrees with her, so be it.


Call it the downside of the internet where everything is public and not private and it is posted forever.

[ArtK78]

Mike, it is more than just venting.

Judy is a very intelligent person (aside from being a distant cousin of mine). Her arguments and those of her current husband, Bobby Wolff (who is neither late nor dead), are set forth at length and are convincing on their face. Obviously, many persons are not willing to accept their personal experiences and their personal conversations with others as constituting a sufficient argument to prove that the Blue Team was cheating. So be it.

For me, the arguments set forth by Bobby Wolff and Judy Kay combined with the fact that others who have a personal stake in the matter (i.e., surviving members of the Blue Team) have not come out in public to dispute the allegations is sufficient for me. At least, I have not seen any such rebuttal, and no one who has posted in this thread or on Judy's blog has posted such a rebuttal. In Judy's blog, there were some mentions of statements from third parties disputing the allegations, but those third parties have not personally posted to state that they disputed the allegations.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I find it worthy of note that the principals being accused have not refuted the allegations. While one poster addressed this by stating that "a dignified silence is the best anybody can manage, in such trying circumstances," I find that argument to be ingenuous. And, while that same poster, paraphrasing Terence Reese, stated that it is impossible to prove that one is not cheating, that is not what I am looking for. I don't need proof that the accused are not cheating. But, at the very least, I need a denial from the accused. I have seen none.

So, while it may very well be true that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, the lack of a denial of guilt can be very telling.