[doofik]

Mike777,

Are you suggesting that the committee was incompetent? How about putting some burden on participating players, as if that's news to them, that you do not make certain gestures, you do not do anything that might be misinterpreted as a signal? I'd rather misread a camera film than to be acting on someone's word who has a stake in the outcome. However, given the circumstances of a closed room, no kibs, no one around, how do we call the AC competent or incompetent?


What I'm reading in your post, Mike, is that we might as well go ahead and cheat because there never is proof enough to convict. And that is just a defetist attitude, IMHO.

doofik

[Walddk]

There is obviously more to this case than we know. It would be naive to think that a committee with, among others, Bill Pencharz and Jens Auken (highly esteemed lawyers in London and Copenhagen respectively) would pass a sentence like this if evidence is not at hand.

They should know what libel suits would involve.

Let me predict: This is the point of no return for Buratti and Lanzarotti. They know it, and the bridge world knows it.

Roland

[doofik]

Roland,

Your prediction is probably not misguided. My immediate concern is that as a sign of solidarity with B-L (teammates in this event) all the wonderful top Italian players may boycott world events. I actually believe that if that were to happen, every win will be cheapened.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

doofik

[Walddk]

doofik, on Jul 4 2005, 09:59 PM, said:

Roland,

Your prediction is probably not misguided. My immediate concern is that as a sign of solidarity with B-L (teammates in this event) all the wonderful top Italian players may boycott world events. I actually believe that if that were to happen, every win will be cheapened.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

doofik

I think you are wrong. The other Italian top pairs won't boycott anything .... unless, and that is my biggest concern, Madame Lavazza decides to stay away from bridge (sponsorships).

That would be truly sad, and I know that this is a fear shared by many members of the European Bridge League executive committee.

Roland

[McBruce]

Walddk, on Jul 4 2005, 12:08 PM, said:

The other Italian top pairs won't boycott anything .... unless, and that is my biggest concern, Madame Lavazza decides to stay away from bridge (sponsorships).

That would be truly sad, and I know that this is a fear shared by many members of the European Bridge League executive committee.

It seems to me that as long as there are people willing to spend serious money to be sponsors or clients, it follows that:

--the best players will compete for the sponsors' and clients' money
--this competition will often be more important than the championship at stake
--the chance that one or more of the competing pairs will be found or be suspected as cheaters will increase

I agree that it would be unfortunate if bridge lost any sponsors. But it would be better to find some method that will get the cheating pairs and expose them once a hearing determined their guilt. Video might help. Until bridge is more effective at finding cheaters and openly proving their guilt, we are going to have to put up with the spectre of cheating, especially where money is directly or indirectly involved.

[mike777]

doofik, on Jul 4 2005, 02:16 PM, said:

Mike777,

Are you suggesting that the committee was incompetent?  How about putting some burden on participating players, as if that's news to them, that you do not make certain gestures, you do not do anything that might be misinterpreted as a signal?  I'd rather misread a camera film than to be acting on someone's word who has a stake in the outcome.  However, given the circumstances of a closed room, no kibs, no one around, how do we call the AC competent or incompetent?


What I'm reading in your post, Mike, is that we might as well go ahead and cheat because there never is proof enough to convict.  And that is just a defetist attitude, IMHO.

doofik

Good grief my post says just the opposite of what you seem to have read into it, oh well. Just more proof how one can take eyewitness reports or camera and one reads or sees the exact opposite. .


I never said eyewitness had a stake in the outcome or not.
I will repeat, good grief,
If we have a competent committee that is the best we can hope for and perhaps record the hearing if possible. Many seem to think camera will solve the issue, not sure how, since even if I hold up 3 fingers, tug at ear and wave at camera that is only evidence, many will say guilty evidence, some will say not enough, again all we can do is hope for competent committee to reach a reasonable conclusion.

[whereagles]

This has not been the first 'issue' with Buratti-Lanzarotti. They have been kicked out of the Lavazza team once (about 3 years ago, also for 'fingering' stuff). You can say they were on 'parole', but failed to 'regenerate'.. lol.

[nickf]

Deanrover, on Jul 4 2005, 09:37 AM, said:

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.

I don't agree with this notion. And I also can't think of any precedent in any sport where someone has all previous accomplishments stripped.

Other sports dont automatically ban particpants found guilty of cheating for life so why should the bridge administrations.

nickf
sydney

[FrancesHinden]

L&B have not been banned for life.
So far, all that has happened is that they were disqualified from the EBL teams & recommended not to enter the pairs.

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 5 2005, 02:40 PM, said:

L&B have not been banned for life.
So far, all that has happened is that they were disqualified from the EBL teams & recommended not to enter the pairs.

Possibly academic, but as to the latter part of your post it's merely your interpretation of the Committee's decision. It reads:

Lanzarotti-Buratti to be disqualified from the teams event - Law 91B.
Match Score adjusted to 18-0 in favour of the team of East/West.
Matter to be referred to the Credentials' Committee with reference to the Pairs' event in these Championships.

http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05T...ns/28TuePg3.htm

.....

It's hardly a surprise that the pair did not attempt to enter the pairs event.

Roland

[Elianna]

nickf, on Jul 5 2005, 05:16 AM, said:

I don't agree with this notion. And I also can't think of any precedent in any sport where someone has all previous accomplishments stripped.

Other sports dont automatically ban particpants found guilty of cheating for life so why should the bridge administrations.

nickf
sydney

I seem to recall eight white sox players being banned for life from baseball.

Of course, they were accused of purposely acting to their teams DETRIMENT (being bribed by because of gambling), instead of in attempt to win.

Pete Rose is not allowed in the hall of fame, nor are his records officially listed because he bet on his own team (to win, so he claims). Of course, this is still being debated, and might be overturned, who knows.

Anyway, just pointing out that people HAVE had their careers taken away because of cheating (but I believe it was admitted to in most of the above cases (and the debate is about severity of punishment)).

[hrothgar]

doofik, on Jul 4 2005, 05:29 PM, said:

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.

I strongly agree with Doofik that fixing the conditions of contest needs to be the key "take away" from this incident. As I noted earlier, I don't think that we will ever have enough information to know with certainty what happened at Tenerife, let alone what may have happened in previous events... However, I very much believe that this "issue" was forseeable and preventable. [Lord knows I've been harping about these issues for years] Accordingly, i beleive that the tournament organizers share a lot of blame for this incident.

I still believe that an electronic playing environment is a MUCH better solution than a system based on cameras. While I don't beleive that any such system would offer perfect security, I believe that such a structure is the best that we can do at this point in time.

If I ruled the bridge world, I'd implement something similar to the following:

1. All players are geographically co-located at the same physical site
2. During play, all players are segregated by direction (all North's in one room, south's in another)
3. All players are responsible for providing their own laptop computers. All laptops need to support the ability to boot from a CD-ROM. The "tournament" will run from a bootable image (This system makes it more difficult for players to modify the tournament software)

Please note - these suggestions are for major events like the Bermuda Bowl and other major championships. I seem no reason why such a system should trickle down to clubs or even regionals.

[Gerben42]

This is a terrible idea. Bridge is a card game and at-the-table psychology is part of it. You cannot just throw that out of the window.
Also you cannot expect everyone to have a laptop or be able to use one.

[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Jul 5 2005, 06:25 PM, said:

 

>This is a terrible idea.
>
>Bridge is a card game


Bridge is a game that has traditionally been played using "cards". However, please consider the core elements of the game: Neither bidding, nor declarer play, or even defense depends on a player's ability to manipulate little pieces of paste-board. Indeed. the dramatic success of BBO and OKBridge suggests that many players are perfectly happy to compete without the need for "cards".

>at-the-table psychology is part of it

As I noted in the past, the Laws and proprieties of Bridge deliberately attempt to exclude "At the Table" psychology. If you don't believe me, the deliberate "hitch" with a singleton and see what happens.... Equally significant, I think that the L+B incident does a pretty good job exposing the problems with "Table Feel" arguments.

>Also you cannot expect everyone to have a laptop or be able to use one.

True. But the players who compete in events like the Bermuda Bowl aren't "everyone". Given the total cost of participating in events like the recent TENERIFE affair, its very hard to claim that a laptop PC is going to break the bank.

I find it incredible that the WBF can insist that they want to promote Bridge as a spectator sport while simultaneously insisting on employing such a badly flawed playing environment. Electronic competition will improve VuGraph by an order of magnitude while simultaneously yielding dramatic improvements in security. I readily admit, some pros might not like playing the game using computers. I certainly would expect that B+L would have protested. However, its important to understand that pros (ANY pros) are ultimately replacable. Assume for the moment that Meckwell, Helgemo, and the Blue Team all quit the game of bridge. Someone out there would still be "the best". And the average fan would continue to be amazed and astonished by whoever assumed their mantel.

At the end of the day, its important to do whats best for the game, not what's best for any one individual's or any group of individual's revenue stream....

[mike777]

"At the end of the day, its important to do whats best for the game, not what's best for any one individual's or any group of individual's revenue stream.... "

This is an old debate in many ways and in many subjects outside of bridge as well.
For the ACBL is the number one priority the best interests of the game of bridge or the self-interests of its members? Many times this is the same, sometimes it is not.
For the WBF is the number one priority the best interests of the game of bridge or the self-interests of its membership? Again these can be in conflict at times.

Leadership takes a stance.

At the very least I hope Richard's leadership on this issue will create more discussion in regards to one issue, the importance in regards to fun, winning and legality of table feel in the game we all have so much passion for.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jul 6 2005, 12:57 AM, said:

At the very least I hope Richard's leadership on this issue will create more discussion in regards to one issue, the importance in regards to fun, winning and legality of table feel in the game we all have so much passion for.

Sadly, my status as a "leader" is most closely approximately by that of Cassandra

[luke warm]

while it may be true that ways to cheat at the highest levels can be found, whether the play is 'live' or via computer, i'd still love to see all such events played electronically.. it's just my personal view

[mikeh]

A number of years ago, I was playing against Mike Lawrence and Grant Baze. I was not as focussed as I would like to think I usually am in such circumstances. At about trick 4 or 5, Lawrence led towards a KJx holding in dummy. I wsa on his left, with the Ace. I broke tempo by maybe a third of a second: the very slightest of twitches. Lawrence flew with the K. My partner asked him, at the end of the hand, why he did it (much to my chagrin since I well knew why) and Baze answered; "because your partner broke tempo".

Electronic bridge will destroy the ability to read such minute breaks in tempo. And that ability is definitely part of what bridge is about. Also, in every tournament mistakes happen. Even world class players revoke.... you cannot revoke in most forms of electornic bridge. If you programmed revokes into the game, you raise other issues for players with motor skill problems... I know several good players who have difficulty with fine motor skills. They would be at increased risk of revoking.

And a friend of mine, a ACBL Grand Master and multiple canadian internationlist once told me of a lead he made, during a major event. RHO had bid to 7♥ and he was on lead. he decided to lead away from Qxx♦. Dummy hit, displaying the 'other'♦Queen. Ooops: he had led away from Qxx of trump, into AKJxxxx... the only lead to allow the contract to make.

He would never make that mistake if the computer sorted his hand for him.

The game is one of skill, endurance, psychology and frailties. Electronic bridge is wonderful, but it is not the same game.

[hrothgar]

mikeh, on Jul 6 2005, 03:14 AM, said:

A number of years ago, I was playing against Mike Lawrence and Grant Baze. I was not as focussed as I would like to think I usually am in such circumstances. At about trick 4 or 5, Lawrence led towards a KJx holding in dummy. I was on his left, with the Ace. I broke tempo by maybe a third of a second: the very slightest of twitches. Lawrence flew with the K. My partner asked him, at the end of the hand, why he did it (much to my chagrin since I well knew why) and Baze answered; "because your partner broke tempo".

Lets assume somethng slightly different...

Exact same opponents, exact same "problem" at the table.
The only difference is that this time you are holding Qxx rather than Axx

You decide to deliberately "hitch".
Lawrence flys with the King losing to partner's Ace.
Your side has just taken two tricks in this suit and score a top...
Of course, you've also cheated...

Pros are able to exploit this "table feel" in part because they have banned players from adopting obvious counter measures like faking that they have a problem.

I don't see any reason why table feel deserves special protection. I feel that this is especially significant given that players accussed of cheating often use table feel as part of their defense.... Its all fine and well if players want to trust their instincts. All I ask is that players actually need to use their instincts.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on Jul 5 2005, 07:51 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 6 2005, 03:14 AM, said:

A number of years ago, I was playing against Mike Lawrence and Grant Baze. I was not as focussed as I would like to think I usually am in such circumstances. At about trick 4 or 5, Lawrence led towards a KJx holding in dummy. I was on his left, with the Ace. I broke tempo by maybe a third of a second: the very slightest of twitches. Lawrence flew with the K. My partner asked him, at the end of the hand, why he did it (much to my chagrin since I well knew why) and Baze answered; "because your partner broke tempo".

Lets assume somethng slightly different...

Exact same opponents, exact same "problem" at the table.
The only difference is that this time you are holding Qxx rather than Axx

You decide to deliberately "hitch".
Lawrence flys with the King losing to partner's Ace.
Your side has just taken two tricks in this suit and score a top...
Of course, you've also cheated...

Pros are able to exploit this "table feel" in part because they have banned players from adopting obvious counter measures like faking that they have a problem.

I don't see any reason why table feel deserves special protection. I feel that this is especially significant given that players accussed of cheating often use table feel as part of their defense.... Its all fine and well if players want to trust their instincts. All I ask is that players actually need to use their instincts.

This is a valid point; I've also known players who use pace of play to try to rattle their opponents and get them to "hitch". Although not "cheating", surely trying to rush players through a hand is tantamount to "poor sportsmanship" at the least.
It would seem the only defense to this ruse would be to counter with a "false" hitch.

There are surely some wonderfully talented players in the world who would not think of bending the rules; but I come from the "bad old days" of bridge when it was common for at least some of the "touring" pros to go to the restroom between rounds and get "wires" on the hands, so I am not so naive as to believe that everything is as it seems just because someone has a world reputation.

I still believe the best way to handle these matters is to remove the screens and install clear tabletops with video cameras that can show all the foot movements, gestures, etc. It's not impossible to cheat under those circumstances but as my 10 years in Las Vegas casinos proves - it almost impossible to get away with it for long.

WinstonM