[Fluffy]

I dunno who slx is, but he seems totally biased.

What is that thing of answering with CAPS? do you think you will have more reason for doing that?, please behave properly mate.

Everybody I talked to at Tenerife beleived Buratti knew the ♦ distribution (there were some funny jokes arising about it during next week), the problem is Buratti insulted the comitee by trying to induce them to think that the way he played was the best technical way to win the match. Had he just said opponent let him see his cards, probably there wouldn't had been that huge penalty.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Jul 6 2005, 08:13 PM, said:

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.

Todd is perfectly correct. Players could use some form of wireless device to circumvent all of the technical wizardry that I propose. Even so, I think that its worth considered a couple key points:

1. If players are forced to use electronic devices in order to achieve out-of-band signaling it becomes much easier to prove definitely whether people were cheating. There's no more need to relay on he said/she said. Seach the accused individual. I'd call the presence of a transmitter pretty damn conclusive.

2. An electronic playing environment permits perfect record keeping. In turn, those records permit some detailed statistical analysis... Even if we can't directly observe the signalling, it is possible to detect pairs who consistently make "lucky" leads or "inspired" defenses...

[inquiry]

Fluffy, on Jul 6 2005, 01:25 PM, said:

I dunno who slx is, but he seems totally biased.

It seems most people have made up their minds, some that they had to be cheating, others that they couldn't be cheating, and still others, that they might have been cheating but there is no "proof."

In this way, each of these groups seem biased to me. But please, lets keep this discussion civil. We each have a right to our views.

[MickyB]

cherdano, on Jul 6 2005, 05:38 PM, said:

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

IMO your suggested method would be irritating and is unneccessary. At trick one, it is normal for 2nd+3rd hands to think for a while before playing, regardless of whether they need to think about which card to play to the first trick. Later on in the hand, you may as well play your card face-up and leave it there while you think. That way, partner and declarer can think while you do.

[doofik]

To slx,

The problem that I have with your posts is that they are cynical and, consequently, the message is lost, at least to me. Personal attack won't do you much good either.

doofik

[slx]

doofik, on Jul 6 2005, 01:37 PM, said:

To slx,

The problem that I have with your posts is that they are cynical and, consequently, the message is lost, at least to me. Personal attack won't do you much good either.

doofik

I dont get this. what I try to say is that 2 people maybe - I repet: MAYBE - are accused and their bridgelife destroyed on a wrong assumption.

Who is cynical here doofik ? Me or U ?
I tried to get the REAL TRUTH of what really happened... and u call this cynical.
thank u. They hang 2 people on a doubtful ground and the one who wants to put light on the facts is CYNICAL... would u write the same thing if u would disclose ur identity ?

slx really sad....

[hrothgar]

slx, on Jul 6 2005, 10:06 PM, said:

doofik, on Jul 6 2005, 01:37 PM, said:

To slx,

The problem that I have with your posts is that they are cynical and, consequently, the message is lost, at least to me.  Personal attack won't do you much good either. 

doofik

I dont get this. what I try to say is that 2 people maybe - I repet: MAYBE - are accused and their bridgelife destroyed on a wrong assumption.

Who is cynical here doofik ? Me or U ?
I tried to get the REAL TRUTH of what really happened... and u call this cynical.
thank u. They hang 2 people on a doubtful ground and the one who wants to put light on the facts is CYNICAL... would u write the same thing if u would disclose ur identity ?

slx really sad....

This isn't text messaging and you don't get charged by the letter...
If you drop drop the LEET speak, folks might pay more attention to the argument

[doofik]

Getting at the truth doesn't necessarily involve cynicism and shouting in capital letters. Capital letter don't get you any closer either.. I don't think that you can get at the truth unless you were there and were an eyewitness.

doofik

[slx]

doofik, on Jul 6 2005, 02:28 PM, said:

Getting at the truth doesn't necessarily involve cynicism and shouting in capital letters. Capital letter don't get you any closer either.. I don't think that you can get at the truth unless you were there and were an eyewitness.

doofik

ok lets talk about capital letters. when have no more arguments u find always something to write about... ok dera doofik . no more capitals.
what about rsponding to the statements ?
u didnt answer to my staements - u complain about my capitals. u ´must be certainly a sensitive person ........

i was no eyewitness and i was not there. were u there ?

[doofik]

"ok lets talk about capital letters. when have no more arguments u find always something to write about... ok dera doofik . no more capitals.
what about rsponding to the statements ?
u didnt answer to my staements - u complain about my capitals. u ´must be certainly a sensitive person ........

i was no eyewitness and i was not there. were u there ? "


The difference between you and me is that I'm not taking any position on the accusation nor on the decision of the committee. I'm not attacking nor am I defending because we've got sketchy details to say the least. Getting into a pissing contest is no fun because no one wins those.

doofik

P.S. In case you weren't aware of the nuance of capital letters, in computer-speak they're considered shouting.

[luis]

inquiry, on Jul 6 2005, 05:45 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jul 6 2005, 01:25 PM, said:

I dunno who slx is, but he seems totally biased.

It seems most people have made up their minds, some that they had to be cheating, others that they couldn't be cheating, and still others, that they might have been cheating but there is no "proof."

In this way, each of these groups seem biased to me. But please, lets keep this discussion civil. We each have a right to our views.

I have yet a different view.
I don't know if they were cheating or not but I think the comitee acted poorly. The facts and the decision don't match. If they were considering previous events they should have provided the information from those previous incidents.

[inquiry]

I have had to step in and delete some entire post.

If you guys want to get personal, take it somewhere else. It should be possible to express different views without attacking the person making those views.

[mike777]

luis, on Jul 6 2005, 03:27 PM, said:

inquiry, on Jul 6 2005, 05:45 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Jul 6 2005, 01:25 PM, said:

I dunno who slx is, but he seems totally biased.

It seems most people have made up their minds, some that they had to be cheating, others that they couldn't be cheating, and still others, that they might have been cheating but there is no "proof."

In this way, each of these groups seem biased to me. But please, lets keep this discussion civil. We each have a right to our views.

I have yet a different view.
I don't know if they were cheating or not but I think the comitee acted poorly. The facts and the decision don't match. If they were considering previous events they should have provided the information from those previous incidents.

It seems obvious that only a tiny fraction of the full facts and evidence has been released to the public. This is a terrible shame.
Typical of some facts we are missing is "demeanor". My bet is we are missing many other pieces of evidence also.
The demeanor of the witnesses is very often a more important set of facts and evidence than what has been verbally communicated.
We all know from our old school days that communication is 7% verbal and 93% other. Where the heck are the other missing 93% communications?
It seems we have closer to 7% of the full facts than 100%, so far.

A crying shame.

[Erkson]

slx, on Jul 6 2005, 07:36 PM, said:

ok lets talk about capital letters. when have no more arguments u find always something to write about... ok dera doofik . no more capitals.
what about rsponding to the statements ?
u didnt answer to my staements - u complain about my capitals. u ´must be certainly a sensitive person ........

i was no eyewitness and i was not there. were u there ?

I am on you side, slx.

There was a couple of mistakes in your original post (it is a pity, and posters pointed rightly to them), but your general idea is right for me.

The judges may have more information than what has been published, but from the judicial point of view there is no valid proof in what has been published.

All informations the judges may have must be published.

I am stunned by the acceptance of the verdict on this forum.

I will add that, for me, if B&L don't bring the cause to a Court, it will be a confession of their cheating.

Erkson

PS : I agree with your use of lines in CAPITAL LETTERS. They make your long post looking clearer and prettier. They are not against Net etiquette.

[Erkson]

mikeh, on Jul 6 2005, 03:50 PM, said:

To slx, whoever you may be. Your response to the posting from the Israeli tem member does neither you nor the game any credit. The majority of the 'points' you make are either absurd or unfair.

mikeh, whoever you are, that is a very offensive way to reply to a post.

For me, slx would be right to demand apologies.

Erkson

[the hog]

mike777, on Jul 7 2005, 12:29 AM, said:

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.

Roland to play fast in the hope that the opponents make a mistake IS legitimate. What is not legitimate is to VARY your tempo. If you constantly play fastand hope the opponents misdefend that is their problem. They can try to slow the tempo down. You may note that some good players deliberately try to cultivate a very fast declarer style at the table.

[the hog]

Regarding Lanzarrotti-Buratti. It appears there are many "bush lawyers" around. People should not comment unless they know the facts, not the facts as presented by someone who has a barrow to push.

Luis' post is unemotional and sensible and I agree with his comments.

[guggie]

Just put yrself in the place of Baraket. Your screenmate, who is dummy, peeps into yr hand, than lies on the table, tapping in an unusual way with 3 fingers on his arm and on the table, at least 2 times, in a way his p can see it, and consequently this partner plays against the odds you for having 3 trumps and wins a slam.


Furthermore, why should we, admittedly NOT knowing all the facts, roll over the digital floor fighting? Let the normal procedures take their course.

I was in Tenerife, but got more information from internet than in the playing grounds. There was a lot of hearsay, generally like a kind of relief they were caught at last, but that is only hearsay.

[Gerben42]

About playing on computers: To those who have never played with screens and get the feeling it is impersonal.

It isn't. The relation with your screenmate can be very nice (or not but this rarely happens as better players tend to be nicer than on lower levels)

And for me personally it is better for my play because I can concentrate more without seeing partner. And it has a feel of seriousness on it that helps me also. On the other hand playing on a computer the reverse is true. You have no one to communicate with and harder to concentrate (at least for me).

[joker_gib]

Gerben42, on Jul 7 2005, 11:26 AM, said:

About playing on computers: To those who have never played with screens and get the feeling it is impersonal.

It isn't. The relation with your screenmate can be very nice (or not but this rarely happens as better players tend to be nicer than on lower levels)

And for me personally it is better for my play because I can concentrate more without seeing partner. And it has a feel of seriousness on it that helps me also. On the other hand playing on a computer the reverse is true. You have no one to communicate with and harder to concentrate (at least for me).

Totally agree !

Alain