[reisig]

If the committee made the correct choice in this case (which I agree with)...then it follows that this pair should disappear because there's soooo much under the surface. You don't just happen to give a signal on ONE hand...they must have discussed these signals for many situations...and having discussed them ..clearly have used them before. I've heard suspisions from several players ..some Italian players. I only hope that this B-L thing doesn't reflect on the truly great and honest Italian players like Versace, etc.

[doofik]

This is to Fred.

If this situation has been festering for such a long time, why does it appear that B-L were able to play without any observation, presumably no camera, i.e. nothing? Am I missing something (not that it would be the only time)? The level of players involved directly and indirectly is such that whispers should turn into a proof or a denial, but at least the situation would be clear. Instead, we've got 'what if'.

One of world class players claims that he has a stack of hand records that prove without a doubt that these two have been at it for years. He's been knocking on several doors all of which got slammed in his face. Was it the result of Lavazza power? But then they were voted off the team.

More questions than answers, I guess.

doofik

[Erkson]

mikeh, on Jul 14 2005, 03:51 PM, said:

There is no 'rule' that requires that there be more than one witness before the trier of fact can accept the evidence. There is, in civil law, no requirement for corroboration.

That's true.

"Testus unus, testus nullus" (i.e one witness, none witness) is an old latin saying, which is not in my law either.

But the problem here is that there is no witness, because all four players in the closed room are parts in the case and can't be witnesses.

Erkson

[McBruce]

Erkson, on Jul 14 2005, 08:43 PM, said:

But the problem here is that there is no witness, because all four players in the closed room are parts in the case and can't be witnesses.

This argument is the same as saying that:

-- if someone steals your car while you are watching, you cannot testify against them because as victim you cannot be a witness
-- if you are assaulted you cannot testify against the attacker because as victim you cannot be a witness
-- if RHO peeks into your hand and then says "he has three trumps partner" and there is nobody else around you are toast since as victim you and your partner cannot be witnesses

Think again, please. If instead you mean Bareket cannot be an IMPARTIAL witness; OK, I agree there. In fact, this is the crux of the case. If you have 100 cases where the only testimony is the word of the opponent against the word of the alleged signal passer/user, you are going to have at least 99 where there is no conviction. To get a conviction under these circumstances you need the accuser to be very credible or (more often) the accused to be shown not to be at all credible. If the two sides appear equally likely (or almost equally likely) to be telling the truth, the result is going to be "insufficient evidence."

We have enough from the report to see clearly how B-L showed they were not at all credible during the hearing.

[Walddk]

Am I the only one who is fed up with the Buratti-Lanzarotti case by now? You may be able to travel to the end of the world by telling lies, but there is no way you can come back from there!

Roland

[luke warm]

Walddk, on Jul 15 2005, 06:51 PM, said:

You may be able to travel to the end of the world by telling lies, but there is no way you can come back from there!

or as we say down heah, what goes around comes around

[Erkson]

McBruce, on Jul 15 2005, 11:30 PM, said:

This argument is the same as saying that:

-- if someone steals your car while you are watching, you cannot testify against them because as victim you cannot be a witness
-- if you are assaulted you cannot testify against the attacker because as victim you cannot be a witness
-- if RHO peeks into your hand and then says "he has three trumps partner" and there is nobody else around you are toast since as victim you and your partner cannot be witnesses

It is exactly what I said, and I think that it is what the Law says.

You can say to a judge : X. does it, but if the investigation can't proove it with witnesses or the other legal means (confession, writings, scientist tests etc...), it is useless.


Erkson

[c2]

Yesterday, I happen to be a dummy when playing at my club, I closed my left eye and bent to LHO, there is no difficulty reading all his cards.

[Gerben42]

No Roland, let's talk about something else. For example the ongoing junior European Championships in Riccione.

[helene_t]

McBruce, on Jul 16 2005, 01:30 AM, said:

Erkson, on Jul 14 2005, 08:43 PM, said:

But the problem here is that there is no witness, because all four players in the closed room are parts in the case and can't be witnesses.

This argument is the same as saying that:
-- if someone steals your car while you are watching, you cannot testify against them because as victim you cannot be a witness
-- if you are assaulted you cannot testify against the attacker because as victim you cannot be a witness

Not that I disagree with your point but this analogy is inaccurate.

A victim is not part of the case since a criminal case is between People and the defendant. This may sound like pedandicts but it's relevant. If your car is stolen (I will assume that's a fact and the dispute is restricted to "by whom?"), then it is not in your (obvious) interest to accuse someone in particular.

This is different from the B-L case. The dispute was whether cheating had occured, and the victim had an obvious interest in accusing B-L for having commited cheat.

[geller]

I don't know anything except what I've read, but it certainly appears B-L had (whether deservedly or not) a less than sterling reputation developed over a period of several years. In view of this, why weren't they regularly videotaped by a setup like the "eye in the sky" at casinos? Or perhaps was this actually done, but just not announced?

Does anyone know?

[fred]

geller, on Jul 19 2005, 02:03 AM, said:

I don't know anything except what I've read, but it certainly appears B-L had (whether deservedly or not) a less than sterling reputation developed over a period of several years. In view of this, why weren't they regularly videotaped by a setup like the "eye in the sky" at casinos? Or perhaps was this actually done, but just not announced?

Does anyone know?

I know that for a couple of years the ACBL's official "recorder" (Rich Colker) at the time, kibitzed every board they played in ACBL tournaments.

Perhaps it is not a coincidence that their results suffered during this time.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[geller]

Brings to mind the old expression, "as honest as a cashier with the boss watching."

[mike777]

Wow, having the ACBL official recorder at all or even almost of your hands during a long 2 week event seems very odd. Doing this for a year (3 full events) or several years seems incredible. There are thousands of players from around the world playing. For the top recorder to spend this amount of time or even 10% of this time is a huge surprise. Did the man know something or just have nothing else to do for a couple of years?

One would think over all these events over a couple of years some other table was worthy of watching while B&L were playing? hmmmm

Did the "recorder's boss" know how he was spending the vast majority of his "National" time for 2 years?

[Erkson]

helene_t, on Jul 18 2005, 10:10 AM, said:

A victim is not part of the case since a criminal case is between People and the defendant. This may sound like pedandicts but it's relevant. If your car is stolen (I will assume that's a fact and the dispute is restricted to "by whom?"), then it is not in your (obvious) interest to accuse someone in particular.

This is different from the B-L case. The dispute was whether cheating had occured, and the victim had an obvious interest in accusing B-L for having commited cheat.

There can be a civil case inside a criminal case. I assumed that the examples of criminal cases had inside a civil action, otherwise they would be irrelevant.

When there is a civil case inside a criminal case, victims become parts in the case and they can't testify.

Erkson

[geller]

Quote

There can be a civil case inside a criminal case. I assumed that the examples of criminal cases had inside a civil action, otherwise they would be irrelevant.

An analogy to soccer seems more relevant than discussion of legal matters. If a player commits a serious foul he will be sent off (shown the red card) by the referee, and his team must play on a man short. The committee in Tenerife was essentially playing the role of a referee. The referre's decision is final. This is what happened at Tenerife. B-L were tossed out of the event they were playing in. Full stop.

On the other hand, a player sent off once for an extremely grave foul, or with a history of many fouls, can be punished further by the disciplinary authorities of his country (or FIFA or UEFA) with a suspension or even expulsion for the game. A famous example is Eric Cantona of Manchester United, who charged into the stands and assaulted a spectator.

The disciplinary authorities of bridge (WBF, for example, or the European federation) have not yet, to my knowledge, taken any disciplinary action against B-L. Presumably they have the right to do so, but there must be some hearing where B-L could be represented by counsel, cross-examine witnesses, and presumably appeal to the sports arbitrartion court in Lausanne if hypothetically they were dissatisfied with the verdict.

I think the criticism of the committee in Tenerife (that they didn't function as a court) is not valid, inasmuch their decision was limited to the event in question and had to be arrived at quickly duriing an ongoing event.

[fred]

mike777, on Jul 19 2005, 02:25 AM, said:

Wow, having the ACBL official recorder at all or even almost of your hands during a long 2 week event seems very odd. Doing this for a year (3 full events) or several years seems incredible. There are thousands of players from around the world playing. For the top recorder to spend this amount of time or even 10% of this time is a huge surprise. Did the man know something or just have nothing else to do for a couple of years?

One would think over all these events over a couple of years some other table was worthy of watching while B&L were playing? hmmmm

Did the "recorder's boss" know how he was spending the vast majority of his "National" time for 2 years?

The reason the recorder was there is because a lot of people (including, I presume, whatever ACBL person is the "boss" of the recorder) thought that there was a good chance that this pair was dishonest.

I have never heard of a recorder being assigned to kibitz a pair before. Then again, in my experience, I do not recall any A-1 partnership being as widely suspected of cheating as B&L have been during the past 6 years or so.

The spontaneous (and loud) applause that broke out at the captain's meeting in Tenerife when the B&L ruling was announced was remarkable in my view. To me this could only confirm that many of the world's leading players were under the impression that B&L were dirty. Through rumors I knew that this is how people felt, but it was still very strange to think that a committee's ruling would result in such an emotional reaction for so many people. I don't ever remember a situation where a large group of people reacted in such a favorable way to a committee's decision. Under normal circumstances, roughly 50% of the players find any given committee decision to be horrible.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[doofik]

Well, I guess I got my answer:-) Thank you very much.

It would appear that the player with the hand records didn't go to the right organization. He kept knocking on European doors.

doofik

[kense]

Quote

Wow, having the ACBL official recorder at all or even almost of your hands during a long 2 week event seems very odd. Doing this for a year (3 full events) or several years seems incredible. There are thousands of players from around the world playing. For the top recorder to spend this amount of time or even 10% of this time is a huge surprise. Did the man know something or just have nothing else to do for a couple of years?

One would think over all these events over a couple of years some other table was worthy of watching while B&L were playing? hmmmm

Did the "recorder's boss" know how he was spending the vast majority of his "National" time for 2 years? 


The reason the recorder was there is because a lot of people (including, I presume, whatever ACBL person is the "boss" of the recorder) thought that there was a good chance that this pair was dishonest.

I have never heard of a recorder being assigned to kibitz a pair before. Then again, in my experience, I do not recall any A-1 partnership being as widely suspected of cheating as B&L have been during the past 6 years or so.

The spontaneous (and loud) applause that broke out at the captain's meeting in Tenerife when the B&L ruling was announced was remarkable in my view. To me this could only confirm that many of the world's leading players were under the impression that B&L were dirty. Through rumors I knew that this is how people felt, but it was still very strange to think that a committee's ruling would result in such an emotional reaction for so many people. I don't ever remember a situation where a large group of people reacted in such a favorable way to a committee's decision. Under normal circumstances, roughly 50% of the players find any given committee decision to be horrible.

MY question to everyone...if ACBL were suspicious for so long, needed to have a recorder monitor therir every bid and play WHY WERE THEY ALLOWED TO CONTINUALLY PLAY TOGETHER? And was the recorder in Tenerife watching? As I hear it the players were alone in the room. Will they EVER be allowed to play together AGAIN for any country or sponsor? One more very important question will they be stripped of their Cavendish and Vandebilt victories?

[doofik]

In a clumsy way, my questions were the same

doofik