[nickf]

I don't really care for who's right or wrong, apart from a general inclination to make sure justice prevails.

An important, but so far overlooked, point is the impact upon bridge should Mme Lavazza seek to withdraw the level of sponsorship and support she affords Italian and world bridge in general.

Bridge will be the loser then.

nickf
sydney

[aray]

This reminds me of the famous anti percentage finess of ♣ Q by Bochhi in the world championship against USA very recently. We all agreed and appreciated the line of play because he needed a swing.

For arguments sake, if an USA player would have alleged the same way that Bochhi's parner signalled where ♣ Q is what would have happened?

Without an agreement of whether someone saw the cards or not, is there a mathematical % defined as a threshold that if your % falls below that and you win then there is a case of cheating?

It can be very well the fact, that the appeal body is right. But the law demands evidence and simply because a suspected line of action was an winning line, can not punish one.

Never before a single isolated incidence was picked to punish a pair. In absence of evidence, the match could have been declared null and void, but the punishment looks amazing.

In every game there are some disliked players and people wait to take action against them. Their success troubles others. Similar thing has happenned in Cricket against Saurav Ganguly, I suspect may be this pair was also not liked by others and may be even in their country?

And lastly, is it legal for a dummy to look into the defender's card? If it is not, why did not the the defender called director before the game was over and waited till he saw the contract made?

[bearmum]

Cascade, on Jul 3 2005, 07:25 PM, said:

Gerardo, on Jul 3 2005, 03:48 PM, said:

That's enough for me. You have to believe either Bareket or Lanzarotti, as they contradict each other. The one you don't believe must be punished, either for making up things (Bareket), or outright lying to the Comittee (Lanzarotti, he denied taking a look).
Can't just say "nothing happened, move along".

Bareket can not know for certain what Lanzarotti saw or didn't see. Only Lanzarotti can know that. So there is the possibility that Bareket thought that Lanzarotti was looking at his cards when he was not. This is certainly possible assuming that Lanzarotti has limited vision in his left eye as he told the committee.

I am not saying that I believe one player and not the other only that it is possible that Lanzarotti was telling the truth and Bareket was legitimately mistaken.

In these day of litigation ( We/They said ad infinitum ) the only winners seem to be the lawers and in the rarified atmosphere of TOP level bridge it (IMHO) is really difficult to PROVE cheating from just ONE tournament --- because of the 'we say/they say thing'

SO
Do International Bridge tournaments have to get to the stage that the players have not only be behind screens for bidding BUT also have blinkers on so ALL they can see is the area where the cards are put on the table -- and MAYBE have soundproof earphones too ??

I for one think THAT would be the DEATH of the wonderful game that I have played JOYFULLY ( but not particularily[sp?] successfully) for MORE than 40 years )

It is really a pity

[doofik]

Inasmuch as I found it curious the action taken by Bocchi-Duboin against B-L during the Cavendish, the discussion that's unfolding here is very troublesome to me.

I don't understand why we're getting into nationalities, justice systems of independent countries, credibility of players, etc. We don't even know what exactly happened as details are sketchy at best. Either we believe that committees at such events are cool heads or we should do away with them. And if we believe that committees are level headed then what is this discussion about? And if we believe that committees are hot headed then vote for a change.

doofik

[Fluffy]

Sorry guys, I just came form Tenerife and I am can't read all this topic, just wanna point a couple of things:

-6♦/NT was far from a standard contrtact, 30 HCP combined full of Jacks, standard bidding is 2NT-3NT (as happened on both the tables in our match), never noticing the 9 card fit.

-Buratti-Lanzarotti have been under high suspicious for a very very long time.

[McBruce]

nickf, on Jul 3 2005, 12:47 AM, said:

I don't really care for who's right or wrong, apart from a general inclination to make sure justice prevails.

An important, but so far overlooked, point is the impact upon bridge should Mme Lavazza seek to withdraw the level of sponsorship and support she affords Italian and world bridge in general.

Bridge will be the loser then.

nickf
sydney

This recent post on rgb by Isabela Amancio mentions Mme Lavazza:

"Well, I have just returned from tenerife and it was amusing to read all the
speculations and discussions about the B&L affair. For what is worth this is
what I witnessed there: I was with Melih Ozdil and some other friends,
sitting at a restaurant two days after the "affaire" and saw Guido Ferraro
come and sit down at a table next to ours where the Israeli team which had
been involved in the controversy were sitting together with some others I
did not recognize, and explain in his peculiar funny English what a good
deed the Israeli pair had done, that those two "ladroni" (his words) had
finally got what they deserved after 20 years of cheating, that they had
played badly up to then and must have decided to put the overdrive (his word
exactly) when they felt they needed. When they came back for the scoring up
after the match and he, surprised, asked them how they made the slam which
had gone down at Bocchi's table, nobody could believe B&L's reply and that
he had wanted to dive in the swimming pool for the embarassment and the
stupidity of what they had done. Then he continued saying that B&L had tried
to reassure them and told them not to worry that nothing will happen, since
they had won 25-2. How wrong they were! He finished saying that as a regular
Chief of Appeals Committee in Italy he had had enough of strange bids and
plays of "those two". A few minutes later, the coach of the Italian team,
Ortensi, also went there and apologised for what had happened saying that it
was his job as coach of Lavazza to try and defend B&L in the AC and that Mrs
Lavazza and him very, very sorry and distressed about the whole incident. I
guess that should put the "End" word to all those speculations made here by
those who tried and find "normal" reasons for their behaviour."

[mike777]

Isabela Amancio wrote

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.ga...8bf388e1256bcd0

Well, I have just returned from tenerife and it was amusing to read all the
speculations and discussions about the B&L affair. For what is worth this is
what I witnessed there: I was with Melih Ozdil and some other friends,
sitting at a restaurant two days after the "affaire" and saw Guido Ferraro
come and sit down at a table next to ours where the Israeli team which had
been involved in the controversy were sitting together with some others I
did not recognize, and explain in his peculiar funny English what a good
deed the Israeli pair had done, that those two "ladroni" (his words) had
finally got what they deserved after 20 years of cheating, that they had
played badly up to then and must have decided to put the overdrive (his word
exactly) when they felt they needed. When they came back for the scoring up
after the match and he, surprised, asked them how they made the slam which
had gone down at Bocchi's table, nobody could believe B&L's reply and that
he had wanted to dive in the swimming pool for the embarassment and the
stupidity of what they had done. Then he continued saying that B&L had tried
to reassure them and told them not to worry that nothing will happen, since
they had won 25-2. How wrong they were! He finished saying that as a regular
Chief of Appeals Committee in Italy he had had enough of strange bids and
plays of "those two". A few minutes later, the coach of the Italian team,
Ortensi, also went there and apologised for what had happened saying that it
was his job as coach of Lavazza to try and defend B&L in the AC and that Mrs
Lavazza and him very, very sorry and distressed about the whole incident. I
guess that should put the "End" word to all those speculations made here by
those who tried and find "normal" reasons for their behaviour.
--
.

[Fluffy]

'He finished saying that as a regular
Chief of Appeals Committee in Italy he had had enough of strange bids and
plays of "those two"'

In spain and Portugal, where they have been playing several tourneys last 2-3 years we have a some more.

[jillybean]

Very, very sad. I followed the Italians on vugraph in awe of their card skills.

[Walddk]

jillybean2, on Jul 4 2005, 08:03 AM, said:

Very, very sad. I followed the Italians on vugraph in awe of their card skills.

By "the Italians" I assume you mean Buratti-Lanzarotti. It is obviously inappropriate to drag any other Italian bridge player into this mess.

Roland

[Timbitt]

One bridge player accused his opponents of cheating.
The accused denied this.
The authorities accepted the opinion of the accuser.

If these men were guilty, they were not caught.
They were accused.

If these men were innocent, they can never prove it.

This is a sad mess.

[Walddk]

No matter who is right or wrong, no matter what is right or wrong, BRIDGE is the loser. Period.

Does anyone really think that it would be any different at the bridge table than it is in other sports? If so, dream on!

Roland

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Jul 4 2005, 09:41 AM, said:

No matter who is right or wrong, no matter what is right or wrong, BRIDGE is the loser. Period.

Does anyone really think that it would be any different at the bridge table than it is in other sports? If so, dream on!

Well yes, but if the claims of "20 years of cheating" are really true, then bridge was more of a loser while they were playing on without getting caught. This I find most depressing about this incident.

Arend

[Deanrover]

If someone is found guilty of cheating in any sport they should have all previous accomplishments stripped. So if B-L fail to clear themselves on appeal they should be stripped of the 2005 Cavendish along with any other pairs and teams successes they have had.

[Fluffy]

I think that applies only forindividuals Dean, I can't Imagine a soccer national team beign unawarded the world championship when one of their players gets a positivie during the next year.

[Deanrover]

Fluffy, on Jul 4 2005, 11:29 AM, said:

I think that applies only forindividuals Dean, I can't Imagine a soccer national team beign unawarded the world championship when one of their players gets a positivie during the next year.

Firstly, football not soccer ! Secondly, you are not entirely accurate.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ics/3670825.stm

[doofik]

Needless to say, this is a hot topic now that players are returning from Tenerife. So details are becoming more interesting, especially to someone like me, a novice who will never ever play at the level we're discussing here.

Today I've learned that the play took place in a closed room. There were players and no one else. While I don't know squat about probabilities and percentages for taking a line of play, I do know about life. And I'd like everyone on the forum to put yourselves into B-L's position. Now it's you who's playing in a closed room and your opponent goes and tells a TD that he's noticed that when you scratch your left ear with the right hand, declarer always gets the crucial finesse right. No one can confirm, no one can prove a thing. But the smoke is beginning to billow.

We shouldn't pass a judgement based on a word vs. a word, we need to fix the conditions of contest. Without any visual proof, it does become a witch hunt and since livelihood is at stake, putting cameras in the playing area becomes elementary. We can't destroy someone's professional career on another's say so. I'm not saying anyone was right or wrong, all I'm saying is that proof is so difficult and yet so easy to come by. Those cameras sure would solve all of our misgivings.

Someone said, well the cost is prohibitive. And my reply was, and I presume that attorneys are cheap.

doofik

[Fluffy]

I agree penalizing them for this hand is not the best way to catch them, and I am completelly sure if there wasn't all the previous suspections they wouldn't had been banned.

But again, there is no fool proof on any deal, instead there are a lot of deals. They have payed for previous ones more than these one.

[Gerben42]

Then the question is IF there were so many previous hands:

Why were they not penalized before?
Why would other players pick them as teammates?
Why would the sponsor have them on their team?

and if there were no such hands:
Why is the evidence on this hand considered enough for such drastic action?

[mike777]

doofik, on Jul 4 2005, 09:29 AM, said:

Needless to say, this is a hot topic now that players are returning from Tenerife. So details are becoming more interesting, especially to someone like me, a novice who will never ever play at the level we're discussing here.

Today I've learned that the play took place in a closed room. There were players and no one else. While I don't know squat about probabilities and percentages for taking a line of play, I do know about life. And I'd like everyone on the forum to put yourselves into B-L's position. Now it's you who's playing in a closed room and your opponent goes and tells a TD that he's noticed that when you scratch your left ear with the right hand, declarer always gets the crucial finesse right. No one can confirm, no one can prove a thing. But the smoke is beginning to billow.

We shouldn't pass a judgement based on a word vs. a word, we need to fix the conditions of contest. Without any visual proof, it does become a witch hunt and since livelihood is at stake, putting cameras in the playing area becomes elementary. We can't destroy someone's professional career on another's say so. I'm not saying anyone was right or wrong, all I'm saying is that proof is so difficult and yet so easy to come by. Those cameras sure would solve all of our misgivings.

Someone said, well the cost is prohibitive. And my reply was, and I presume that attorneys are cheap.

doofik

Ok I will repeat myself
1) More evidence is better than less.
2) Multiple eyewitness accounts are very often confusing and contradictory open to many interpretations and often just plain wrong. My guess is more eyewitness testimony will conclusively prove nothing more.
3) Multiple camera angles will be confusing, contradictory and open to many interpretations. The camera does lie.

See histories of eyewitness accounts and incidents with cameras that people still strongly disagree on after decades. See past bridge accounts where many many eyewitness claim to be 3 feet away and have sharply different stories.

More evidence better than less but I expect to see sharp disagreements on the next bridge scandal no matter what.

My take is compose a competent committee to make competent ruling and if possible record the hearing so all of us can see the "evidence" presented in critical cases of wide interest. Final deliberations of committee should be closed or we will get no one to be on the committee