rhm

Why can't partner have ♠AKxxxx ♥x ♦xxx ♣xxx or better? Rainer Herrmann

Playing on diamonds first is probably superior. All lines seem to require that the club ace is onside. If the club ace is wrong the defense need not switch to clubs early. If you establish and cash the spades early, say on a heart continuation, since you have only a sure entry to dummy in hearts, you go down if spades do not break even when the club ace is onside. Win the heart in hand and play a diamond up. Whatever the defense does next switch to spades, overtaking the ten in dummy. Later establish a diamond trick, which acts as an entry to the spades. If you establish three cashable diamond tricks in the process for the defense before you have 9 tricks too bad, but this looks less likely than spades not breaking. Rainer Herrmann

You are wrong and you will not be proven right even should it turn out that BZ did cheat. Rarely did I read so much malicious nonsense as in these few sentences quoted. Rainer Herrmann

You hold the South hand. The bidding starts as described 1♥-(DBL)-RDBL-1♠ to you. Question: As a top player would you not plan your auction at this stage? It is not too difficult to foresee what will happen next should you pass over 1♠. Frankly I am not surprised by the speed of the second pass without knowing what happened to the timing of the first one. It is the hallmark of a weak player that he does not plan ahead. Smirnov's decision could have been influenced by whether their 1♦ opening showed an unbalanced hand already or not. After all they did play something close to Polish club. Rainer Herrmann

If you go to court, many expect to get justice. What they get instead is a sentence. Rainer Herrmann

Because some think it is etched in stone that BZ cheated and most are biased not least because allegations against other pairs proved successful. If you read some posts in this thread you could get the impression that most cheating pairs are still undetected in top level Bridge. Of course there must be a good reason why some (myself included) can not compete at the top level. Rainer Herrmann

If you psyche intentionally (and assuming you do not do it often so that your partner is "aware" about it) there is no issue and I agree there is no issue when playing in a new partnership or in an Individual. However, if you play in an established partnership and consider the best bid with such hands to pass initially, because you think no bid describes your hand well (so it is not a psyche) there is an issue. For an established partnership I would consider this dubious, assuming your partner will not alert when you come in later at a high level. It has long been established that treatments arising from past experience are just as alertable than conventions. But this guideline is followed more in theory than in practice and when an alert is missed they usually get away with it, because this is often considered a "grey" area. Few partners do alert. If the partnership succeeds and they make their doubled contract with an overtrick, most declarers are proud of themselves how clever they have been. The ethical side is rarely even discussed. Rainer Herrmann

I do not see the merit of passing with such an offensive hand and no rebid problems. (For me a 5 loser hand and I consider this assessment conservative) I will never understand why some people open balanced 11 HCP hands but pass with such a hand. Sure if you pass you might deceive opponents when you come in later. In fact opponents are deceived by not being alerted to your style. You will profit from not fully disclose your methods to them, at best a dubious, though quite common practice. Anyway, it is much more likely your partner will be deceived. The only options I would consider is 1♠ and 4♠. I prefer 1♠, since we might make 6♦ while going down in 4♠ Rainer Herrmann

I consider your statement contradictory and I happen to agree with the second half. I also consider myself "semi-competent", but it is anything but obvious to me how to tackle the hand. Sure in isolation clubs offers better prospects than diamonds. But you can not look at a suit in isolation. Entry considerations are always important to someone who is "semi-competnent". If you attack clubs you would probably have to play ace followed by a low one to the queen. (But low to the queen without cashing the ace is another option, but both black suits are then blocked.) Even if that works opponents can counter with attacking diamonds and dislodge your last entry in hand and your spades tricks are blocked. By the way Suitplay gives the chance for 4 club tricks as 17.76% a far cry from 50% mentioned above. The chance for 3 club tricks is 63% and 47% in diamonds This hand is very complex and I doubt I would find the best line at the table. But I would find no reason for reporting anything if a "semi-competent" declarer started with ducking a diamond. For me reporting here is more proof of general paranoia fed on recent revelations and unwillingness of people accepting bad results with good grace. For some the next cheat is always round the corner now. Raner Herrmann

The problem is not a 1NT response you might be able to pass. The problem is when partner forces to game - and in 2/1 this decision comes early even on borderline hands - but there is no game, when partner doubles opponents or when he is even stronger and will consider slam. I know if my partner opened 1♠, I would not expect a hand with a single second round control as his only important asset. If you want to open light open hands like ♠AJxxx ♥Axxxx ♦xx ♣x. This can badly backfire, but it can at least win as well. Rainer Herrmann

I don't know what is borderline nowadays. I would open in third or fourth position. But otherwise I have more sympathy for your partner than for you. For me this is a balanced 10 point hand and I do not open balanced 10 HCP hands in first or second position. In my opinion it is a losing proposition. Weak players are usually mesmerized by quacks because with the same amount of HCP when they lack aces, they have more honors and because they have more they tend to be in sequence, of which some people make a big deal. In white I have some sympathy for a weak two in spades. At least it could work out. Rainer Herrmann

You think there was no supporting evidence? You must live in a different world than I do Rainer Herrmann

Apparently such statements do not need to be accompanied by any sort of evidence. I am old fashioned enough to believe that those who make such claims have to substantiate them, not the ones who doubt them. Frankly I am tired of this paranoia. You can design all sorts of clever illegal signals. But in the end you must be able to apply and decipher them correctly at the table to get any "benefit" from them. This practical aspect reduces the possibility for designing complex clever codes. Humans are not computers. I am against putting each player of a Bridge session in a different room behind a terminal, hopefully with a human monitor and video cameras behind each player. Big brother is watching you. Even if I qualified I doubt I would go under those conditions to a big event. Some cures are simply worse than the illness. Rainer Herrmann

I had not Italy in mind and I spoke about a high detection rate. I did not mention any countries by purpose, but since you did... I am pretty sure nowadays the country I live in (Germany) does at least as good a job as the US in crime detection and clearance and convicting the guilty ones. But that may depend on the type of crime. The clearance rate for murder (once established) in Germany is quite high. To get away with murder in Germany requires in all likelihood that the cause of death by an outside force remains undetected. But Germany is by no means perfect. Rainer Herrmann

Your descriptions is correct, your conclusions are faulty. Due process is in deed designed to protect the innocent ones. That's why it is important. But it does not follow, that due process protects the guilty ones as well. Cheating is a bit like crime in a society. It can not be eradicated completely. Some societies have a low crime rate, few people in prison and their due process follows a high standard with very few miscarriages of justice even though their detection rate is high. Other countries have a high crime rate, a lot of people in prison and their due process is poor with many miscarriages of justice. To be good in both - due process and prevent cheating - to a large extent requires in the first place good precautions, with which I do not mean going electronic. For example the fact that hand records are now archived but are available to the public and big events get video taped allows for much better retrospective analysis than before. This is similar to what fingerprints and DNA samples did to the evidence needed to convict criminals. No surprise that we now have two famous incidents in quite a short period of time. In fact it should not be too difficult to develop software, which can automatically detect suspicious patterns from the archives. For example on BBO I have seen rating classifications, which rate some BBO players of my country as "world class" , even though I have never heard about them and though I do not play much nowadays, I think I know or have at least heard about almost anyone who is a mere expert in my country. Rainer Herrmann

Wrong forum Rainer Herrmann

Technically you may be correct for some regions of jurisdictions. However, from a justice and fairness point of view the level of proof we require to "convict" someone and the safeguards we need should be dependent on the consequences such a conviction has. Criminal cases are rarely about life and death, even if someone gets convicted. And there are civil cases like here where the consequences of a conviction is, that you destroy someones reputation and make him an outcast for a long time. Now, I ask you what safeguards do you consider appropriate in such a case, if not "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Rainer Herrmann

Muddled thinking I dare say. It is true that North knew that their partner was in front of the long spades, but their partner did not know this fact when they doubled? North did not say he expected to beat 3♠, their partner did. Taking out the DBL here shows a healthy mistrust of partners judgement (Of course justified here). I would hold ♠JT97x ♥Ax ♦x ♣xxxxx if I doubled 3♠. I do not care whether South had undisclosed values. Values do not necessarily take tricks in defense. How many tricks does South have after this bidding? Certainly none in clubs. I would say he has one certain trick. What made him believe his partner would contribute four more? Penalty doubles are not my default action when I do not know what to do. Pass is. The double is so bad, I would never consider it at any form of scoring. I see nothing North could do about this disaster. He certainly did not promise anything more in defense. I can see North taking out the DBL to 4♣ if his minors were interchanged. The fact that some poster suggest a Pass over 2♣ and other 5♣ shows that North club raise was spot on. Rainer Herrmann

No you are not alone. For example Richard Pavlicek is on your side. http://www.rpbridge.net/7y16.htm#3 http://www.rpbridge.net/8w24.htm#4 However, I am not. I think the value of a convention is not only when you employ it, but also when you don't. If playing support doubles I think it is extremely valuable if you know that any other action denies 3 cards in partner's suit. For example if partner rebid his suit he will imply 6 cards and he sometimes can double knowing that you have at most two cards in his suit. Therefor I would not pass with 4333 playing support doubles. I think support doubles are not worth playing if you give up this inference. I readily admit there may be times when another action could look better than Double. That`s in my opinion one price of this convention. It seems to me that more people have come around this view in the last years. Rainer Herrmann

Sorry but this is nonsense. There are few experts, who would claim in slam bidding you do not need a keycard ask. With minors there is a problem. 4NT is usually too high for that purpose. kickback, redwood, minorwood all try to find a substitute which is lower. Has anybody claimed keycard will solve all problems in slam bidding and is always appropriate? You must be joking. But keycard is much more useful than aceask because it does not only look at aces but also at trump losers. I like minorwood because afterwards I can often suggest 4NT as a resting place, which is useful when a minor has been agreed, even more so at matchpoint. Every bidding step available below 4NT counts. Now back to your issues that you do not know whether you have 10 or 12 tricks. The foundation for good slam bidding is done in the early stages of bidding not in the last ones. This generally means the information you exchange below 3NT, which is a watershed in bidding, particularly with minor suit fits. 2/1 is an improvement, but I still think people do often not make good use of the avialable bididng space they have created by forcing to game early. For example the way I play 1♥-2♦; 3♦ shows not only 4 card diamond support it also shows an unbalanced hand. After 2/1 opener uses the next highest bid to show minimum or (semi)balanced hands and 2NT acts as a substitute what the next highest would have shown in standard. (here 2♥ is step one and 2NT would show 6 hearts and an unbalanced hand) So you can see I would be on much firmer ground if I would launch minorwood after 1♥-2♦; 3♦ and if I get a disappointing reply I might be able to stop in 4NT I am not claiming my system is perfect or the only way to do it, but the principles on which it evolved are important. Rainer Herrmann

Whatever people claim, it seems to me cheating at the top level is getting much harder because 1) deals and plays are archived and available to the public for scrutiny. 2) it also seems to get much more common that big tournaments get videotaped and these are also available to the public. Cheating will never get completely eradicated but the recent incidents in a short interval of time will probably act as a deterrent to quite a few. 1) allows for proper statistical analysis. Proper statistical analysis requires expertise few have and is often misinterpreted. But when done properly it is good evidence. 2) allows for code detection and when the correlation is very strong where no correlation should be (e.g coughs with opening leads) it is also good evidence. For example modern statistical analysis can detect whether bills authorized for payments in a large company are fake or not. I do not see why similar methods could not be employed with deal records. For example http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/44448-who-is-the-best-declarer-in-the-world/ and look who comes out on top. You can do similar things with opening leads etc. Where I am less convinced is 5). Rumors start quickly and can have very dubious motives. I also dislike if someone is barred from a tournament based on such rumors and complaints. It is somewhat ironic to me that FS may now be convicted of cheating "beyond reasonable doubt" but the trigger was a won appeal, which had nothing to do with the cheating allegation in itself. The motives of Boye Brogeland look to me like revenge. Rainer Herrmann

One of my pet ideas is that when the bidding starts 1X Pass Pass DBL one should play transfer responses to the balancing takeout DBL. Rainer Herrmann

Greatly exaggerated. While top players play better, otherwise they would not be top players, they make plenty of mistakes and take suboptimal lines all the time. They all know of course the common right lines of play, which are discussed in the books. Ask any unbiased top player or read Kit Woolseys weakly series on BW. They usually start with something like "In a Round of 16 match in the Open Trials etc. " Whenever I read "No top player would ...." I get skeptical Of course they are not stupid but they are no super-humans either. I also got the impression that very good play is not the most important ingredient for a top player, even though undoubtedly useful. You get a wrong picture, because these are reported in the newspapers. Opportunities for brilliancy are rare. Good understandings and agreements where it matters, judgement and constant performance, even if you are only above average but not top, is what matters much more. Rainer Herrmann

Yeah, let's indulge in some conspiracy theories. So much more fun. FS hired some Israeli hackers, who learned their trade at the Mossad and they are now sending death squads to Norway to get Boye. Mossad is good at that Rainer Herrmann.

1) not sure I understand your point here. 2) I am well aware that no single deal can convict cheaters. I looked at a lot of deals presented and if somebody selects one from a set I presume he thinks it is "fishy". If it then turns out the pair has taken the same action as the accuser under comparable circumstances I can not help asking myself , what is the point? On the majority of deals I looked at I either would have taken the same Bridge action or I can understand the action taken. Only a very small number are not comprehensible to my Bridge insight, like the club lead against 1NT. But what evidence is this? Even my experienced partners frequently take action which look absurd to me. If you think at the top level things are different, like Brogeland seems to imply, I suggest you look at Woolsey's weekly series at Bridgewinners. You will see that on analysis you can find a lot of mistakes done by world-class players. Unfortunately looking for a "holistic" pattern is too easy once you have a suspicion. I am sure you would find one on my boards, if you select the set and looked hard enough. I said I know the pair has a bad reputation and their history with the IBF is a good reason why the allegations could be true. 3) I am well aware that "beyond reasonable doubt" means different things to different people. Let me say that for me the doctors were convicted beyond reasonable doubt. I hold the term "in dubio pro reo" very high, because I know of witch hunts in the past. People are easily convinced of something which may not exist. There are countless examples. Ir's the way our brain works. We want an explanation and if we do not have one we simply invent one, whether it fits reality well is not so important for our brain. Rainer Herrmann