[pclayton]

News update from ATL:

Played against a District Director in the GNT's who told me that while they couldn't do anything official, that BL were strongly discouraged not to come. Huh? What?

On a more positive note, the board is Finally getting their act together re: the GNT's. Next year a pair from Texas was planning to play with a sponsor from MA in District 17 (Vegas). They've had enough with the "well I keep an apartment there" excuse. It met with a lot of opposition, but the alternative was trashing the event altogether. Bravo!

[keylime]

I mentioned the GNT situation on my latest podcast - any listing of the Board agenda there?

[pclayton]

Just a brief note in the Friday or Saturday bulletin I think. The meeting minutes will have more.

[kense]

pclayton, on Jul 27 2005, 12:11 PM, said:

Just a brief note in the Friday or Saturday bulletin I think. The meeting minutes will have more.

What has this got to do with B-L???
I thought this thread about The Italians not Amrican GNT's?? Am I missing something?

[mike777]

I see in today's ACBL Bulletin that live camera feeds with the images recorded for review are now being used in the top events. No further details were given.

http://web2.acbl.org...5summer/db9.pdf

[mike777]

Long article in Southern California Bridge News, August 2005, by District Director Alan LaBendig.

He is the Western USA zone rep on the ACBL Executive Committee. This is the 5 member ACBL governing group that meets only for emergencies between board meetings.

Long article but here is a quick summary.
1) B&L are members of the ACBL
2) Executive Committee filed charges of "cheating"
3) Case to be heard in Denver in Late November by Ethical Oversight Committee.
4) Chairmen of the Ethical Oversight Committee have suspended them until charges can be heard.
5) Bared from all ACBL events until hearing.
6) Pair was under "much suspicion in the past".

[doofik]

So we seem to hear everything except evidence. Is it possible that all world class pairs have a taint on them because they really play extremely well, and now any of us can approach a TD and have them barred until a hearing with zero evidence? Just because they make an anti-percentage play? Or make a play that the members of the committee will not like? Is that what I'm hearing here? And if there was evidence, why are we still guessing?

The fact that B-L appear to be universally disliked does not give anyone the right to ban them on anyone's say-so. Yes, there are whispers everywhere how dishonest they are (I don't know them so all I'm doing is repeating) but what if those same whispers start against other world class pairs? And where is proof? I've heard one of the best descriptions ever about B-L from a world class player "they cheat, we all know they cheat, but they do it in such a ingenious way that no one can figure out how". But what if such a accusation will be attached to Zia, to Fred, to Balicki, the list is long and distinguished. How are the players supposed to defend themselves? By behaving the way the committee would like to see them behave?

The danger is that our beloved game will become a paranoiac arena. I don't think this is going to be conducive to the growth or popularity of our sport.

doofik

[Winstonm]

Vince Bugliosi, the man who successfully prosecuted the case against Charles Manson and had years of success for the county of Los Angeles, said in one of his books that defense attorneys tried to discredit circumstantial evidence as being like a chain - that if one link is broken the chain is broken. But Bugliosi would tell the jurors that this was not so, that circumstantial evidence was like a rope - if one small strand broke, it didn't affect the rope - the rope was still strong.

There are very few serious allegations of cheating in top level bridge; when they are made, it is not because of one isolated hand but because there has been a pattern of oddities - sometimes years of suspicions without concrete proof. On one hand the opponents coughed after the auction and his partner made a perculiar lead; on another hand, as the auction ended, one of these same two blew his nose, and suddenly another anti-percentage play was made. When you are dealing with circumstantial evidence, the guilty parties must be given enough time to create, strand by strand, the very rope by which they are hanged.

If you keep twisting together enough pieces of twine, you find that logic defies a rational explanation for the rope having been created, although any one instance may be explained away.

A coin flip is a straight 50/50 shot, heads or tails. If after a few years of betting on the outcome you find yourself losing 90% of the times when the coin tosser coughed, sneezed, or pulled out a hanky, you would know without a doubt that you had been had.

Perhaps the WBO and the ACBL should hire Mr. Bugliosi, if he's still around, to prove the case.

[doofik]

To Mike777,

The camera announcement was made in the bulletin at Pittsburgh Nationals also. Not sure about the previous NAC.

doofik

[Fluffy]

pclayton, on Jul 26 2005, 04:25 PM, said:

News update from ATL:

Played against a District Director in the GNT's who told me that while they couldn't do anything official, that BL were strongly discouraged not to come. Huh? What?

They were also strongly discouraged from the EBL to play for Spain on that European bridge championship, but they were paid to, and they finished 2nd. WBF didn't let them play Bermuda Bowl.

[Winstonm]

Winstonm, on Jun 28 2005, 08:07 AM, said:

Perhaps the time has arrived to videotape important matches. 

The cost should not be prohibitive and no longer would we have to rely on "he said, she said" type testimony.  Evidence of this sort would also reduce, I'm sure, the future costs of the lawsuits stemming from the allegations/decisions.

WinstonM

Quote

I see in today's ACBL Bulletin that live camera feeds with the images recorded for review are now being used in the top events. No further details were given.

Gee, if I were only King.

[FrancesHinden]

Fluffy, on Aug 1 2005, 05:06 AM, said:

They were also strongly discouraged from the EBL to play for Spain on that European bridge championship, but they were paid to, and they finished 2nd. WBF didn't let them play Bermuda Bowl.

On what basis? The WBF can't just say "we don't want you to play in the Bermuda Bowl". In fact, I'd have thought that it was for the EBL to pick its teams to represent Europe at the BB, and once they've allowed them to play in the European Championship, that's the end of it.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Aug 1 2005, 11:01 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 28 2005, 08:07 AM, said:

Perhaps the time has arrived to videotape important matches. 

The cost should not be prohibitive and no longer would we have to rely on "he said, she said" type testimony.  Evidence of this sort would also reduce, I'm sure, the future costs of the lawsuits stemming from the allegations/decisions.

WinstonM

Quote

I see in today's ACBL Bulletin that live camera feeds with the images recorded for review are now being used in the top events. No further details were given.

Gee, if I were only King.

I am willing to bet your conclusions are incorrect.
Camera images can lie.
Camera images can be interpreted many different ways.
I think this will reduce nothing and only increase the confusion.

With all that said making you King may be the better solution.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Aug 1 2005, 01:22 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Aug 1 2005, 11:01 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jun 28 2005, 08:07 AM, said:

Perhaps the time has arrived to videotape important matches. 

The cost should not be prohibitive and no longer would we have to rely on "he said, she said" type testimony.  Evidence of this sort would also reduce, I'm sure, the future costs of the lawsuits stemming from the allegations/decisions.

WinstonM

Quote

I see in today's ACBL Bulletin that live camera feeds with the images recorded for review are now being used in the top events. No further details were given.

Gee, if I were only King.

I am willing to bet your conclusions are incorrect.
Camera images can lie.
Camera images can be interpreted many different ways.
I think this will reduce nothing and only increase the confusion.

With all that said making you King may be the better solution.

You are so right. I worked in Las Vegas for years and was involved in trying to catch a cheating dealer - it took over a year to finally get conclusive proof on camera of what he was doing.

However, in an instance like this one, it would still be better to have graphic representation of what happened so the viewer could judge for himself instead of relying on verbal description.

Winston

[roghog]

I know this is an over-simplication, but there seem to be two sorts of experts these days. Some know (and rely on) the odds. Others are more intuitive. Although broadly aware of some of the odds, the latter let themselves be guided by mysterious factors like 'feel' and 'table presence'. (Have you ever asked Zia about the precise odds on a position?)

The intuitive cardplayers aren't usually much represented in threads like this one, or indeed on Appeals Committees. But such a player, declaring this sort of hand, might get a 'tell' from the questions and demeanour of his screenmate. And would certainly have the courage to 'play his hunch'.

So here's a nightmare waiting to happen. An intuitive player takes some anti-odds views that happen to work. A paranoid opponent gets suspicious, imagines the odd cough or gesture is something sinister, and jumps to a completely wrong conclusion.

I'm not defending B&L, but I am worried about the precedent that has been set.

[1eyedjack]

A so-called intuitive player who is consistently successful in top level events will normally be able to provide a cogent reason, albeit perhaps not one that he can easily quantify mathematically, for actions taken. Even the strict number-crunchers at the top of the game will acknowledge that these factors affect the odds. I do not believe that there is a significant difference between the plays made (at top level) between those with a reputation for "intuitive" play and those with a reputation for "analytical" play.

[McBruce]

No such precedent has been. The 'flair' player would simply say to the Committee that table presence made him play the way he did.

Buratti tried to make this type of claim to the Committee by saying the questions led him to believe that the opening leader lacked the Q♦, a claim which has drawn some criticism online. But under normal ciurcumstances the Committee might have believed him, had this been the only defense he put up. But when he followed this up with "diamonds are always breaking badly at this tournament" and Lanzarotti pulled a Raphael Palmeiro: "I did NOT look at his cards...okay, maybe I tilted my head a little but I'm blind in that eye....uh....at least to red suit honours," well, let's just say that the Committee was not comprised of people who were born yesterday...

[EricK]

McBruce, on Aug 4 2005, 06:14 AM, said:

No such precedent has been. The 'flair' player would simply say to the Committee that table presence made him play the way he did.

If the flair player could not articulate exactly what made him play like that then I would still be suspicious. Just saying "table presence" can not be enough.

For one thing, if you do not know exactly what the clues were that lead you to your conclusion then it may be the case that you were picking up clues from your partner, which is unethical.

Eric

[Erkson]

Quote

No such precedent has been.  The 'flair' player would simply say to the Committee that table presence made him play the way he did.

Buratti tried to make this type of claim to the Committee by saying the questions led him to believe that the opening leader lacked the Q♦, a claim which has drawn some criticism online.  But under normal ciurcumstances the Committee might have believed him, had this been the only defense he put up.

I agree.

Quote

But when he followed this up with "diamonds are always breaking badly at this tournament" and Lanzarotti pulled a Raphael Palmeiro: "I did NOT look at his cards...okay, maybe I tilted my head a little but I'm blind in that eye....uh....at least to red suit honours," well, let's just say that the Committee was not comprised of people who were born yesterday...

When I read that I think that I am in a nightmare, or in an Inquisition trial (which is the same).
The assertion about the diamonds break can be a joke, or a natural provocative reaction of someone very irritated by what he judges a silly accusation.

The second reply can be sincere and mean : "yes I tilted my head -and my accusator may have had the impression that I wanted to see his cards- but my movement was only natural. Furthermore and incidently I couldn't have seen anything because of a problem in my eye. "

I imagine so easily that kind of situation that I can't imagine that somebody doesn't realize that there is a possibility for it.

Quote

well, let's just say that the Committee was not comprised of people who were born yesterday...

That's the terrible cherry on that bitter cake.

Erkson

[guggie]

Apparently BL have been under growing suspicion. The ACBL had been collecting evidence and is organizing a hearing - aside from the Tenerife incident.
In my view they have been very careful.

Can somebody suggest a better procedure to handle these suspicions? (Yes, I have read, camera's could provide some extra evidence)