avonw

I thank The Badger for the favourable review. Another review, in The Bridge World, called for the formation of a committee of experts to finally determine the bona fides of the Blue Team. Nothing happened. Nonetheless, the matter is not over. I hope to have some interesting news in the not-too-distant future.

I have emailed Sr Garrisi in the past. He is very firm that I know nothing about bridge whatsoever, and am particularly stupid when it comes to takeout doubles. Meanwhile, he is wrong about Chiaradia and Herbert Negatives. BTW, Chiaradia started work on Neapolitan in 1948... after a decade he had decided upon the unplayable 12-17 1NT opening. There is a section of my book that shows that Chiaradia did not how simple Stayman worked. Now, here is every Neapolitan HN auction after a 1D opening, 1957-1959 1957/115 Forquet J10 Q72 J1063 J983 P 1D X P 1H Siniscalco had four hearts and did not "raise". He knew it was an artificial call. What happened to "...or else the hand is weak but the step has 0-2 cards, not biddable."? 1957/129 Forquet K1093 1064 5 J9763 1D X P 1H What happened to "...or else the hand is weak but the step has 0-2 cards, not biddable."? 1958/32 Siniscalco QJ4 97653 A109 64 P 1D X P 1H P 2H How did Forquet know to raise with three hearts and a balanced 15-count? Why can't partner have the first hand, above? In any event, all this stuff about Herbert Negatives and Exclusion bids is a red-herring. Avarelli & Belladonna's Roman Club book, 1959: Immediate take-out double (by South) over East’s opening bid: Holding 12-16 points with 4=4=3=2, 4=4= 4=1, 5=4=3=1 or 5=4=2=2 distribution and the opening suit coinciding with your shortest suit. (Can also be made occasionally with distributions of 4=3=3=3 or 5=3=3=2 when the doubleton is in the suit bid by the opponent.) Avarelli & Belladonna's Roman Club book, 1969: Informatory Double in Second Position of a Suit Bid. ...The requirements for the double are 12-16 points with 4=4=3=2, 4=4=4=1, 5=4=3=1 or 5=4=2=2 distributions, where the long suits are not the same as the suit opened. 4=3=3=3 and 5=3=3=2 (with the doubleton in the suit opened) are also permissible. 1957/22 Avarelli K4 K2 KJ973 K942 1C ? Avarelli doubled 1958/118 K AJ1075 AJ86 872 1C ? Avarelli doubled 1962/54 8 AJ106 AJ865 A94 1C ? Belladonna doubled 1962/122 Q106 10 AK1054 QJ95 Belladonna doubled. We see that Avarelli and Belladonna are liars. See p8 of my article: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-talk-that-never-was-the-blue-team-rule/ Read this quote (incorrectly ascribed to Perroux; it was actually Pabis-Ticci): Many spectators in the Bridge-rama wondered how Avarelli could not bid on to 4 Hearts over four diamonds, but for whoever knows the Roman Club the answer is simple: Avarelli cannot have less than that in hearts to freely bid the suit at the three level, and in case Belladonna had had a couple of small cards in support, his choice would have been between passing or raising. When he bids four diamonds he shows beyond any doubt that his double hinges on a long diamond suit. Check the hand that follows. Is it not unbiddable? By what means did Avarelli know slam was not a sound proposition? Check the next hand. It exposes Pabis-Ticci as a liar. Check the next hand. How was Belladonna able to jump in a five-card suit when partner doubled 1S with a 4-1-4-4 on the previous board? There is page after page of this sort of stuff in my book, covering overcalls, opening leads, takeout doubles, openings, rebids grotesque systemic violations that never pay out, and and much more. This is getting repetitive.

As for the Roman 2H opening (12-16) with an Acol Two, I have no interest in anything other that contemporaneous works by Avarelli and Belladonna. Belladonna was "lucky" to find Avarelli with nothing but a useless jack; his call could have gained in many ways (primarily by the opponents misjudging). I think you are spending too much time looking at trivial detail; the real deal is, the incredible extent to which wild and weird actions match partner's hand. An example from the same year as GB's massive 2H underbid: AQJxxx A AK10 Qxx. You are vul. 3H P P X In a Bridge Winners poll, 100% either doubled or bid 4S. But Pabis-Ticci bid 3S. Again partner had a useless jack. +140. Tell me, do you think that such underbidding is the way to win three consecutive Olympiads and ten consecutive Bermuda Bowls? There is no specific mention of Roman exclusion advances in the article; they certainly get discussed in the book. P9 of the article discusses Roman's responsive-type doubles (1suit X new-suit X) which are closely related. 1966/45 really is quite something. P12 looks at Neapolitan's Herbert Negative advance to a TOX. Take a look at the last hand; I have little doubt that that would have been one of the items that caused every member of the US team to sign a declaration stating that the BT players cheated. Kaplan (US coach, author of a 1957 book on Italian systems) arranged training sessions where the team played Roman and Neapolitan. All the players would have known what happened on that deal. That the BT players had "help" when making takeout doubles can be seen in Chapter 17 of mu book, where I list every deal from 1957-1959 where a BT player doubled a W2. Samples: Forquet Kxx Ax 109x AQxxx 2S P P X Avarelli x KJxx Axxx KQxx 2D X Belladonna 10 KJx AQxx Kxxxx P 2H X Belladonna AQxx 10xxx 10xxx A P P P 2H P P X And there were no Exclusion Advances. What would you say to a partner who made these doubles? Anyway, I have little more to add. These are available resources: - Small sample of BT hands: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-talk-that-never-was-the-blue-team-rule/ - My book, that covers the 1958 accusation, the 1963 Gerber Letter, the 1975 Facchini-Zucchelli scandal, the 1976 Burgay Tape, instances of official cover-ups and detailed review of hundreds of hands - A list of Italian administrative actions and cover-ups: https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bridge-in-italy-is-different/ - A look at Avarelli https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/another-look-at-walter-avarelli/

Thank you for the link to the Italian text; unfortunately it does not work for me. I see that they mention Forquet's introductory text, All the hands used arose in actual competition and are faithfully and accurately reported." I am sure we agree that to make such a statement when the truth is anything but, is a very grave matter indeed. I am not the first to note Forquet's dishonesty. The Bridge World, July 1983: The deals are presented as if played by Forquet and his teammates while compiling their incredible record … (indeed, many of the deals were played by Blue Team stars)... I wrote to Jeff Rubens, asking if he knew any of the deals that caused Kaplan to write this, but he did not. BTW, when you are next at your club, give the Forquet's 5C deal "played by Belladonna" to a useful player there. He will likely outplay "Belladonna". Forquet's analysis is wrong. Your text contains more errors: ... convinced that these guys cheated for the better part of 10 years. From 1957 to 1983 is more than ten years. ...compliments on how well you have confirmed their suspicions, from players who have a great deal of reputation to gain by having their suspicions confirmed, may not have quite the effect of similar compliments by those not so intimately involved. I have received very favourable magazine reviews all across Europe. The Chinese Bridge Federation paid for the translation into Mandarin and employed staff to double-check everything they could. Do you have any facts, rather than vague statements about "suspicions"? Really, the case is closed, dead, over and out. Not one single top-class player has every suggested any doubt about my book's findings. Given that all you have are repetitive and unsubstantiated lines about bias in a book that you have not read, I shall be saying no more.

Mycroft, above, mentions a serious matter - official policy. I discuss Italian policy here. https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bridge-in-italy-is-different/

For every Roman Club auction, I checked with Avarelli & Belladonna's 1959 and 1969 books, "The Roman Club System of Distributional Bidding". Having gone over every auction I could find, I agree with Danny Kleinman. In my book “Bridge in the Tower of Babel” I examined their {Avarelli and Belladonna’s} use of {the Roman} system, writing a long chapter I called “Bid with the Romans.” Their bidding deviated from their system so often that I concluded they were either terrible bidders or basing their calls on something other than their hands and their supposed partnership methods. That chapter contains some 77 bidding problems of which the pair got only 8 right, but you need not take my word for it, as you can check the deals and my analyses of them for yourself. You might also ask yourself, “Can conclusive evidence of cheating be obtained from studying hand records alone in conjunction with knowledge of partnership agreements?” You might be surprised. Anders Wirgren also went over every Blue Team deal in WCs. ...their timing was always perfect: they overbid when partner had extra values, but underbid when he had nothing. Always. It is impossible to have such accuracy, unless you know something you shouldn’t. My opinion is, it's better to not obsess about one deal, one should look at the big picture. What you will see is an enormous number of gross overbids, underbids and systemic violations. It is a fact that Avarelli-Belladonna did not play Roman Club at all. Both A-B and Forquet-Garozzo put in writing that they played normal takeout doubles; length and values in the unbid suits. The entire Blue Team played nothing of the sort, until the screens went up. There is a brief look at these matters in the "Talk That Never Was" article, and many pages in the book. Time and time again, we see the monstrous give-away... a nutty action is a fine match for partner's holding. This is a double of 1D for Siniscalco at unfavourable: Qxx Q AJ10xxx Axxx and Forquet has enough for game. This is a not a double of 1S for Siniscalco at nil vul: xx KQJx AJxx Qxx and Forquet has rubbish. This is a nil vul 1S overcall for Garozzo: KJ10x Ax 10xxx xxx and Forquet has support and a minimun opening bid. This is not a 1S overcall for Garozzo at favourable: QJ10xx Axxx Ax xx and Forquet has one spade and rubbish. This is a pass of Garozzo's 1S overcall at nil vul for Forquet: Q9x Qxxxx AKx 10x and Garozzo had four spades and a dog. (And when the bidding came around to Forquet again, he STILL wouldn't raise!) This is a raise of Garozzo's 1S overcall at favourable for Forquet: Q109 Jxx Kx Q10xxx and Garozzo had five spades and a minimum opening bid. This pattern goes on hand after hand, match after match, year after year.

I discussed that board with Bob Hamman. He was at the other table. It really is time to stop the fantasy games and face facts.

More inaccuracies. Your rewrite of history is downright silly. ...you have been on a decade long tirade to... besmirch the Blue Team. A Google search of "Blue Team" "Avon Wilsmore" from 01 Jan 2000 to 01 Dec 2017 finds nothing of note. The first published articles of mine about the Blue Team's "untoward activities" were in Bridge Winners, Dec 2017. In any event, my actions were never driven by a desire to "besmirch", but a wish to uncover the truth. More non-North Americans: Sam Lev: Wilsmore’s book is well-written and well-researched, with fascinating details of historical tournaments and events. There are many amazing hands that you will not see anywhere else. The conclusions are very clear and I recommend this exciting book highly. David Gold: When I first began studying bridge, I marvelled at the brilliance of the Blue Team; in particular, how their bidding and use of ‘Italian doubles’ was so effective and so far ahead of the game. Avon Wilsmore has put a great deal of work into a fascinating and compelling book that finally tells the world what it should have been told, many years ago. So much so that your national federation said "no, we don't think we need to bring this up again and give you a national stage to present it" - so you took it to another, even bigger, stage. Rubbish. My application to give a talk at the Feb 2018 Gold Coast Congress about my forthcoming book was declined because of President Rona's presence. There was no "bring this up again"; you made that up. Because I have never seen you post anything that isn't full on the "blue team were cheaters", or at least "blue team players did something that a whole bunch of bridge writers did, and I'm going to complain about it because it's them (and they said something that stretched the truth a bit)." <- and the implication intended to be passed is "since they stretched the truth here, they probably did it where it actually mattered, too." I am unable to understand the section in bold. why are Garozzo and Belladonna so welcomed and celebrated at ACBL Nationals now?" Belladonna died 28 years ago. It's been a while since he was welcomed anywhere. In any event, it's fact that there were real-world consequences for both Forquet and Garozzo as a consequence of my book's findings. I regret I am not currently able to elaborate; I believe I will be able to be more open about this later in the year. We certainly agree that there were nefarious actions by the WBF and FIB/FIGB. My book has many chapters on this. The Burgay Tape was a particularly-egregious such event. Where are the findings? Was the Tape a true account of Blue Team cheating methods, or was it not? FWIW, here is what FIB President Firpo said, regarding the Burgay Tape: Should the inquiry determine that the tape was authentic and furthermore that the declaration by Bianchi of his cheating with Forquet was confirmed, then the Italian Bridge Federation would renounce all European and World titles won with either Bianchi or Forquet on the team. My (possibly excessively-optimistic) aim is to achieve such a renunciation.

I am puzzled by this constant charge of bias. But you started with a conclusion... That is false. There was a time when I was a solid Blue Team devotee, and anyone who asserted they were up to "stuff" would have heard quite a bit from me. But, having studied every relevant WC Handbook, and done many hundreds of internet searches, I changed my mind. Anders Wirgren also changed his mind. For many, many years I thought... that the Italians won because they were superior and the Americans protested just because they didn’t win. I don’t think so anymore. Half a year ago I got a preview on a coming book, written by Avon Wilsmore from Australia. It is called Under the Table with the subtitle The Case Against the Blue Team. It was scary reading. The author’s thesis is that when Carl’Alberto Perroux put together the Blue Team in the mid 1950’s, it was expected for the pairs to “help each other”... All serious authors and writers know that there is no shortcut to the truth. You have to go to the sources. So after reading Under the Table that is what I did. I went through all my old world championship books, downloaded PDF versions of the books I missed and read it all over – with new eyes... After reading many, many old world championship deals, I agree with the author. My own view is that neither Avarelli, Chiaradia, D’Alelio or Pabis-Ticci were good enough to be on an ordinary open Swedish national team – if they played bridge. They needed a partner who “helped them”. Otherwise, they were simply too weak... So I have filled my car with fallen heroes, driven to the city dump and thrown the Italian players at the same place where already convicted cheats are lying. It's fact that I have received many emails from world-class players regarding the BT. 100% of them agree the BT cheated. Many of them thank me for making such a cast-iron case. For copious instances of chicanery, I again refer you to this article: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-talk-that-never-was-the-blue-team-rule/ In the comments, you will see an account of at-the-table BT cheating, by Mike Passell. My book has an account of at-the-table BT cheating, by Mike Lawrence. Before I buy your book I need to know if you really believe that they chose to not have the normal Blue Club auction. You are missing the point. One deal is of little interest. What my book contains are many, many instances of bizarre bids that just happen to match partner's hand. Others have observed this. Anders Wirgren: I am convinced that the Blue Team players signaled their strength in a similar way, because their timing was always perfect: they overbid when partner had extra values, but underbid when he had nothing. Always. It is impossible to have such accuracy, unless you know something you shouldn’t. Indeed, I have an entire chapter where I review all hands where a Roman Club player had a 5-3-3-2 shape and opened the bidding during the 1958 Bermuda Bowl Final. Hand after hand, Avarelli and Belladona violated their system... luckily, partner had just the right stuff every time. Again, others have observed this. Danny Kleinman: In my book “Bridge in the Tower of Babel” I examined their {Avarelli and Belladonna’s} use of {the Roman} system {at the 1966 Bermuda Bowl}, writing a long chapter I called “Bid with the Romans.” Their bidding deviated from their system so often that I concluded they were either terrible bidders or basing their calls on something other than their hands and their supposed partnership methods. That chapter contains some 77 bidding problems of which the pair got only 8 right, but you need not take my word for it, as you can check the deals and my analyses of them for yourself. You might also ask yourself, “Can conclusive evidence of cheating be obtained from studying hand records alone in conjunction with knowledge of partnership agreements?” You might be surprised. I am startled to read fact-free material like this: EOK, someone I personally greatly admire, and who is (indirectly, but in at least three independent situations) responsible for much of whatever skill I have in this game, also has a very obvious bias in this matter - and a very obvious reason to want your conclusion to be true. Should I be surprised that he is willing to blurb your book and publicly state that he is convinced by its arguments (assuming they are sound and strong enough to be reasonable, which I am sure they are, having read your work)? Should I take that blurb strictly on its face, or should I read that with a knowledge of the bias of the writer, too? What, exactly, are you able to provide as evidence of my bias? Bart Bramley: This is the most thorough deal-by-deal examination ever done.

Avon Wilsmore is not understanding this. I have no complaint about either of the two main Blue Team Club system books (Forquet & Garozzo, Garozzo & Yallouze) It is, however, fact that Forquet plagiarised at least one deal in Bridge With The Blue Team, and fabricated the auction and play on another. Details here: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bridge-without-the-blue-team/ In the Introduction, Forquet writes: All the hands used arose in actual competition and are faithfully and accurately reported. He had no business writing that. As for my "bias"... here some samples of Blue Team activity: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-talk-that-never-was-the-blue-team-rule/ Eric Kokish: ...not until now has the full extent of the Blue Team’s collusive cheating been catalogued and revealed. Wilsmore’s book is the product of vast amounts of scholarly research, cross-referencing, and verification. As you read through the deals you will be horrified by the extent of what happened without official challenge or responsible investigation, and you will be in no doubt that the author’s conclusions are accurate.

Here is an example of Blue Team divergence from stated methods, at "just the right time". http://neapolitanclub.altervista.org has an article, “The Neapolitan Club: Outline.” We see two elements of the system: ...With 17+ the opening is 1C... 1S-1NT; 3D — Strong jump: four spades and five or more diamonds. So how to account for Forquet’s actions on this hand? 1958 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 78. Neither vul. [hv=pc=n&w=sa3haq75dkq652ck7&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1hp1sp2dp2sppp]133|200[/hv] Forquet did not open a systemic 1C; he did not then rebid a systemic 3D. And after Siniscalco’s 2S... Forquet passed. Siniscalco had a queen and two jacks. +140

Here is an article that has some instances of "interesting" Blue Team actions: http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-talk-that-never-was-the-blue-team-rule/ On the subject of divergences from stated Blue Club/Neapolitan methods, I think that after the second hand on p12, Forquet and Siniscalco should have been escorted to separate rooms and asked to explain the auction. Failing some good explanation, that should have been their last board in a representative event.

The greatest weakness of Blue Club/Neapolitan is responder's canape. Consider this auction: 1S 2C 2S 3D Is that a reverse into diamonds - a hand like xx xxx AKJxx AKx ? If so, how do you bid xx xxx AKx AKJxx? There is a reason no one plays Blue Club any more... it's full of holes. And the fact is, neither Forquet nor Garozzo nor Siniscalco played Blue Club/Neapolitan. Go through every WC book and look for the systemic violations. It was all smoke and mirrors... especially their takeout doubles. What they said in print bore no relation to what they did at the table.

Chiaradia's Neapolitan Club had a 1NT opening as 12-17, with clubs as the only 4+ card suit. He worked on that from 1948 to its appearance at the 1956 EC. Garozzo tidied up Neapolitan, making Blue Club with a 13-17 1NT... 13-15 with clubs or 16-17 bal.

1972 Olympiad - Italy led after every segment, won by 65 1973 Bermuda Bowl - Italy led after every segment, won by 128 1974 Bermuda Bowl - Italy led after every segment, won by 29 Screens introduced 1975 Bermuda Bowl - USA led by 78 imps after board 51 of the final 1976 Olympiad - Italy 2nd (no final in 1976) 1976 Bermuda Bowl -Italy 2nd, nearly did not qualify for final

Here is an article about Blue Team cheating from a few years ago. http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-talk-that-never-was-the-blue-team-rule/

To be fair to the Blue Team players, my opinion is that, early on in the bidding, they just knew about partner's range and shortages. I also noted that off-shape doubles ceased once the screens went up. AW

You can also see it here - a Steve Becker column: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=266&dat=19910104&id=GvQrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QmoFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2538,305710&hl=en

Also: http://www.lajollabridge.com/Software/Lead-Solver/Lead-Solver-About.htm Free. Recommended.

A question directed to players who have been active in recent large ACBL tournaments: When you took your cards out of the boards at the start of a match, were the first-time-used cards sorted? In other words, did you take your cards out at the start of a match and find the hand was sorted, in suits, high-to-low (ace possibly low; ie KQJ...32A)?

Here are some reasons, courtesy of Jeff Rubens: http://www.australianbridge.com/article_39-5_raisingonthree.php

Elinescu and Wladow caught, convicted and booted out. Summary: http://newinbridge.com/news/2014/mar/german-bridge-world-champs-banned-life WBF hearing: http://neapolitanclub.altervista.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Hearing21-22March2014.pdf The evidence presented: http://newinbridge.com/system/files/news/pdf/excel-sheet.pdf So what about their "victory" by 11 imps in the 2013 d'Orsi Trophy? Will the WBF strip them of the title? Will USA2 be named the winners? Unconfirmed reports say that this pair has a "record" going back some years. According to a newinbridge.com article of early 2011, Elinescu and Wladow "had won the German national title eight times in the past ten years." What will the DBV do about this? Did the DBV have any knowledge of this pair's "untoward behaviour"?

Patroclo: Thanks for the reply... I now have the scores I was after. The book sounds interesting - I will look into it. AW

Sabine: Many thanks for your help. Much appreciated. I have found the other scores I was after... the bridge community comes to the rescue again! AW

I am doing a little work on a subject and need some information from the World Championship (Bermuda Bowl and Olympiad) books listed below. I am wanting to know the scores for each segment of the US-Italy final, and the number of boards in the final. If anyone can help with this, can you leave a message? Thanks. 1958 1961 1963 1964 1965 1966 1968 1969 1972 1976 (BB only)