[MickyB]

Winstonm, on Jul 6 2005, 02:15 AM, said:

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.

I was surprised to be told by a director who I respect that rushing through the hand to try to gain from the opps tempo is against the laws of the game.

[bearmum]

MickyB, on Jul 6 2005, 03:25 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jul 6 2005, 02:15 AM, said:

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.

I was surprised to be told by a director who I respect that rushing through the hand to try to gain from the opps tempo is against the laws of the game.

AN ASIDE to the discussion re Tenerife but germaine to the above quote I think)

A few years ago I was playing in a Regional level teams event here in Australia and playing against a couple who (unknown to us) were well known for trying everything to put their opps off their game. After a bidding disaster (using bidding slips) on hand 1 (where due to bid out of turn they missed a COLD vul slam-- which our teammates bid) they were naturally upset, and in hand 4 asked my partner to "ask your partner to play in tempo or I will call the director!" My partner called "DIRECTOR PLEASE" and after discussion with him I was asked to endeavour to "play in tempo" , so I replied "OK I will count to 3 before making ANY bid or play" -- and did so (silently of course) for the rest of the hands -- which ended putting the opps off, and we won the match 25/0 VP.
Now it looks as though what I did is against the laws and I only did it because I as SO annoyed at the "cheating" accusation

[42]

This could be read in a German bridge forum, therefore I think I can post it here, too (and the last sentence of xxx posting also allows it, I hope):

[Nope it didn't - inquiry]

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2005-July-08, 11:46

[joker_gib]

mikeh, on Jul 6 2005, 02:14 AM, said:

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

I totally agree with you, Mike !

Being at a physical table and is important and is much more pleasant than playing in front of a computer !

Bridge has also a social part !


Alain

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

another member of the lavazza team, ferraro, came to us and said
that they commited suicide and they didn't cheat up to that point in
this specific event but because they were having a bad tournament ,
they probably decided to put the "overdrive" on - whatever that
means.

Maybe there is a language issue here, because I believe neither ferraro nor the reporter have English as their first language.

But being able to tell you that they "didn't cheat up to that point in this specific event" - how on earth does he know? Do they discuss before each match whether to cheat or not? Does the team captain say either "OK guys, we need a good result, anything goes" or "please don't do anything odd, we can win without cheating"?

Saying "in this specific event" - does that mean he knows they cheated in many other events, but continued to play with them anyway?

[Walddk]

What strikes me as odd is that Guido Ferraro (his partner then was Dano De Falco) was reluctant to play in the Lavazza team in the 1st European Open Championships in Menton, France, in 2003 if Buratti-Lanzarotti were in the team too.

A large amount was involved, and even a Bermuda Bowl berth was at stake. Ferraro opted to play with Mario D'Avossa instead. Dano has always said "thanks, but no thanks".

Now, what made Ferraro change his mind before Tenerife I wonder.

Roland

[whereagles]

Walddk, on Jul 6 2005, 10:27 AM, said:

Now, what made Ferraro change his mind before Tenerife I wonder.

That I don't know, but I'd like to point out that this sort of change of mind is not at all uncommon in many instances of human activity. It happens a lot in politics, for instance.

[the hog]

"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."

Totally disagree. Playing fast in an attempt to induce a mistake is perfectly legitimate.

[Walddk]

The_Hog, on Jul 6 2005, 03:49 PM, said:

Totally disagree. Playing fast in an attempt to induce a mistake is perfectly legitimate.

No it's not.

LAW 73

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

2. Intentional Variations
A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made.

Roland

[mike777]

Walddk, on Jul 6 2005, 09:21 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 6 2005, 03:49 PM, said:

Totally disagree. Playing fast in an attempt to induce a mistake is perfectly legitimate.

No it's not.

LAW 73

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

2. Intentional Variations
A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made.

Roland

This law would seem to not pertain here.
Induce mistake does not have same definition as mislead opp.
Perhaps another section of laws do apply however.

[Deanrover]

Anyone playing in a team with a pair who they know (or strongly suspect) to be cheating is an absolute disgrace.

[slx]

Deanrover, on Jul 6 2005, 09:33 AM, said:

Anyone playing in a team with a pair who they know (or strongly suspect) to be cheating is an absolute disgrace.

agree 100 %.
maybe ferraro statements are influenced by the fact that he can only marginally reach the (very cash-giving ) lavazza team...

like in the market when u have the chance to eliminate some of ur competitors...

[FrancesHinden]

slx, on Jul 6 2005, 09:29 AM, said:

"At this point Bareket told the TD what happened."

DID BARAKET CALLED THE TD AT THIS POINT ? IT APPEARS THAT BARAKET CALLED THE TD AFTER HE LOST THE MATCH 25-2 ?

No, all reports I think say it was immediately after the hand.

Quote

THAT'S REALLY SAD. AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. IF I LEAVE MY WIFE AND CHILDREN FOR 3 (?) WEEKS IN ORDER TO BE SLAUGHTERED 25-2 IT'S REALLY ANNOYING... NEXT TIME I WOULD STAY HOME AS WELL...

1 week to play in the Open only. 2 weeks to play in the mixed as well.

Quote

THAT´S AMAZING... DID REALLY BARAKET NOT KNOW WHO IS HE PLAYING AGAINST AND WHO B-L ARE ?!  I DONT THINK ANYONE IN TENERIFE DIDN´T
KNOW WHO TEAM LAVAZZA IS OR WHO B-L ARE ....

In common with many people who don't play much bridge internationally, I don't know what B&L look like. With the exception of Meckwell, I didn't recognise by sight anyone I played in Tenerife who wasn't English or Irish although obviously I knew a lot of the names. Perhaps Baraket was in a similar position.

Also, although Mme Lavazza is very well known, I wouldn't have known without checking who was playing on her team although I agree I would have expected them to be names.

Maybe their names were on their convention cards. Maybe not - not everybody names their cards. Also it seemed very common not to offer a convention card until it was needed, or not to have a convention card at all (really!).

[doofik]

To slx,

I don't know who you are but your ironic tone puts me off. I don't think that the B-L affair needs more fuel in the fire. Why, you don't even bother to spell the names right. Was there some purpose to it?

doofik

[cherdano]

I think this discussion would do better without all-caps.

[MickyB]

The_Hog, on Jul 6 2005, 02:49 PM, said:

"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."

Totally disagree. Playing fast in an attempt to induce a mistake is perfectly legitimate.

To induce a mistake, yes - but to induce an opp to give away the location of a card with his tempo?

[Winstonm]

MickyB, on Jul 6 2005, 11:14 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Jul 6 2005, 02:49 PM, said:

"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."

Totally disagree. Playing fast in an attempt to induce a mistake is perfectly legitimate.

To induce a mistake, yes - but to induce an opp to give away the location of a card with his tempo?

From the top of my head, I remember playing against three very agile minds: Marc Jacobus, Mark Lair, and Alan Sontag. All are capable of very rapid analysis and quick play - and all are TOP NOTCH in the ethics department, so I have no complaints there. But, when facing these guys, I know I must purposefully slow down my own tempo in order not to get caught up in their tempo. But then I have a problem as to "how" to slow down and "when" to slow down without giving UA, which means I'm having to think about a non-bridge problem instead of concentrating on the task at hand. The only successful method I found was to take a long time at trick 1 to try to analyze as much information as possible before playing, and again stop and rethink after winning a trick. But even then, I've had a "lesser star" accuse me of break in tempo when in third seat after the opening lead I took time to consider the entire hand instead of simply playing to the trick, I gave a discouraging signal, and partner continued the suit with a good and valid reason. (The director didn't buy declarer's claim of foul play, btw.)

If there are any other tortoises out there, how you handle these races with the hares would be appreciated information.

WinstonM

[cherdano]

Say, you have to follow with a singleton, but you want to take some time to think about the entire hand before playing. I think the recommended solution is to think, announcing that you are thinking about the entire hand, and then play.
What about playing your card face-down, thinking, and then turning it when you are ready? Would that be acceptable/normal/unnormal/lead to an immediate TD call?

Arend

[mikeh]

The lesser star could have avoided the problem had he followed the basic rule that declarer should never call a card from dummy without significant pause (unless the hand is a claimer). This habit works two ways. It ensures that declarer affords himself full opportunity to consider all possibilities and it minimizes the chance that RHO will be put in a difficult position.

Anyone who plays quickly from dummy at trick one has no-one else to blame if RHO tanks.

[DrTodd13]

So many posts! Here is one more....summary of some thoughts over the past 80 posts.

Sure, playing in front of a computer is not as nice as playing at a regular table but is it that much worse than playing with screens? There are numerous benefits to computers versus screens. When you have to alert, you could have an application with a set of saved alerts and you could send it with a click of the mouse. You could get around language problems by having your saved alerts translated into all appropriate languages and the application would see what language your opps understood best and would then send the alert in their language. For cases when you don't have a saved alert, you could even do something like send the alert to a real-live translator who was working at the tourney and he could translate and forward the text to the questioner.

Personally, I don't want this game to be about sorting cards and handling flimsy pieces of paper. I don't believe that physical card manipulation is part of the game and so I have no problem with engineering out the possibility of revokes.

There are times online where I've read an opponent's slight hesitation correctly to figure out what the best play was. If I can do this across the world over a crappy dial-up connection then reading hesitations over a high-speed network localized to a single hotel is not going to be a big problem. While I agree that this is a slightly different game from screens, I also believe that screens are a slightly different game from f2f bridge with no screens so why are people complaining about the next logical progression.

The "all the souths" in one room concept will solve a lot of problems but inventive cheaters will still be able to cheat. Even with proctors watching, you'll have to be sure they don't have something like a wireless device in their shoe. Maybe if you run them through a metal detector on their way into the room you could guarantee no extraneous communication.