Bridge and the Blue Team

[the hog]

I had fairly lengthy discussions with Wolff on Judy Kay Wolff's blog. At the end, all that Wolff could say was that basically that the Blue Team cheated because he knew they were cheating. He presented NOT ONE IOTA of evidence to back up his claims, nor could he state their method of cheating. I found this extraordinary.

[nige1]

I think that if an experienced bridge player did no more than look at the pictures in Truscott's book, he/she should be convinced that either R+S were cheating or that they were playing a big joke on everyone (hahaha). Something like 13 years ago I played against Shapiro in the Macallan tournament in London...

I could protest that I too played against R-S but I fear that "insane" Josh and "inexperienced" Fred may have been talking to my partners :blink:

[iviehoff]

Without screens, accustomed partners just can't avoid communicating with each other, even without any deliberate attempt to cheat. We know top players read the opponents' mannerisms. How much easier to read your partner's. Perhaps the super-ethical deliberately don't do it. But if you are natural "table-reader" you might even be unconsciously reading your partner and not know whose vibes it is you are picking up.

 

So bridge eventually realised that screens would inevitably be needed.

 

Is the sum of the story that the Italians read each other's mannerisms and no one was surprised they had mannerisms because they were Italian? Because if so it isn't very interesting.

 

In theory you can show cheating through actual hands rather than observation of actual cheating methods. But you need to do statistical analysis and for that you need a sufficiently large dataset. And you need to get a large dataset for the kind of 99.99% statistical inferences will silence most of the doubters. Douglas Zare demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that (apparently) top internet backgammon player Hank Youngerman was cheating by analysing a database of his games. But it is easy to get suitably large datasets with internet backgammon. See http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+1386

 

Though in practice in bridge it isn't so easy. It is legal to read the opponent's mannerisms, and if that is why you surprisingly passed partner's takeout double, smelling the opponent's fear, then that's fair enough and will distort statistical tests.

[athene]

It is impossible for a sane person to read both Reese's and Truscott's books on the incident and not be certain Reese and Shapiro cheated, period.

How many sane people have you tested this theory on?

Think of it as a postulate, not a theory.

I have read both Truscott and Reese and whatever other material I could find on Buenos Aires 1965 and I am 95% convinced Reese-Schapiro WEREN'T cheating.

 

 

The basic thrust of the prosecution's argument goes like this:-

 

 

1. We have accused them of cheating.

 

2. If they are innocent, then all of us who accuse them must be liars and conspirators.

 

3. Therefore, if you maintain their innocence, that's tantamount to accusing us of dishonesty.

 

4. Everyone should be innocent until proven guilty.

 

5. Therefore, since you haven't proven we are guilty, we are innocent.

 

6. Therefore, our charges are true.

 

7. Therefore, Reese-Schapiro cheated.

 

 

The simple fact is, people will see what they want to see. I am sure Reese and Schapiro annoyed a lot of people. I only met Schapiro a few times and never met Reese but they both seem to have been pretty unpleasant characters. I am sure they annoyed a lot of people. A lot of people, I am sure, WANTED them to be guilty. But believing these accusations is like believing all the people who claim they have been abducted by aliens. They aren't *lying* - they really believe they have been - but they are self-delusional.

 

People who are told "R-S are cheating; watch their fingers and see if they tally with this list of heart suit distributions" and report back that yes, magically the numbers tally, aren't necessarily lying, but it's naive to think they have proved anything.

 

The only compelling evidence would the equivalent of a double-blind trial (as used in drugs testing, etc).

 

i.e. give ALL the hand records of the competition to a strong bridge player who doesn't know ANY of the surrounding details.

 

Then ask him: "which of all these pairs playing in this event are signalling length in the heart suit?"

 

If that player, JUST from the hand records, says "clearly pair X, playing for team Y, are up to something", then there might be a case.

[jdonn]

The only compelling evidence would the equivalent of a double-blind trial (as used in drugs testing, etc).

 

i.e. give ALL the hand records of the competition to a strong bridge player who doesn't know ANY of the surrounding details.

 

Then ask him: "which of all these pairs playing in this event are signalling length in the heart suit?"

 

If that player, JUST from the hand records, says "clearly pair X, playing for team Y, are up to something", then there might be a case.

This is 100% wrong, examination of the hands is in fact the LEAST compelling evidence.

 

This wasn't talking on the phone while playing on BBO, this was a world championship. Reese and Schapiro were great players, they wouldn't take such blatant actions that it would be obvious something was strange. Examining the hands just leads to arguments and counter arguments about what one who was/wasn't cheating may have been thinking when they chose the action.

 

Instead try this. Simply look at the pictures in Truscott's book. Note how Reese and Schapiro hold the cards (including when playing with someone other than each other.) Then come up with an explanation for how the cards are being held other than cheating in some way.

 

That is 100% compelling without even considering the hands themselves.

[Lobowolf]

People who are told "R-S are cheating; watch their fingers and see if they tally with this list of heart suit distributions" and report back that yes, magically the numbers tally, aren't necessarily lying, but it's naive to think they have proved anything.

You did get the version of the Truscott book that had the pictures, right? ;)

 

I don't know about "necessarily" proving things; barring syllogisms or tautologies, you pretty much have confidence levels. But in my view, the word "naive" best describes the position that they weren't cheating, in view of the photos. And that's not considering the alleged deciphering of the signals.

 

The argument that the information wasn't put to very good use doesn't explain away the photos. On a number of hands, information might not be relevant to the hand, or it might have been conveyed by a legitimate auction, or it might be too hard to take advantage of by giving the show away. It's like looking at 200 hands of blackjack played by someone who's counting cards. On 195 hands, maybe it doesn't affect his decisions at all. Are you going to conclude definitively that he's counting because twice he took insurance when the count was high, and 3 times he stood on 16 against a 10? Pretty unlikely. The blind test would also suffer from different systems, partnership styles, etc.

[nige1]

The only compelling evidence would the equivalent of a double-blind trial (as used in drugs testing, etc).

i.e.  give ALL the hand records of the competition to a strong bridge player who doesn't know ANY of the surrounding details.

Then ask him: "which of all these pairs playing in this event are signalling length in the heart suit?"

If that player, JUST from the hand records, says "clearly pair X, playing for team Y, are up to something", then there might be a case.

This is 100% wrong, examination of the hands is in fact the LEAST compelling evidence.

This wasn't talking on the phone while playing on BBO, this was a world championship. Reese and Schapiro were great players, they wouldn't take such blatant actions that it would be obvious something was strange. Examining the hands just leads to arguments and counter arguments about what one who was/wasn't cheating may have been thinking when they chose the action.

Instead try this. Simply look at the pictures in Truscott's book. Note how Reese and Schapiro hold the cards (including when playing with someone other than each other.) Then come up with an explanation for how the cards are being held other than cheating in some way.

That is 100% compelling without even considering the hands themselves.

R-S claimed that most of the press-photographs where posed and anyway they admitted that they didn't hold their cards consistently. A subsequent magazine article claimed (as far as I remember) that

• Grips vary between players and players vary their grasp.
  
• The most common number of fingers shown is between two and four.
  

Given that the photographs prove certain guilt to Fred and Jdonn, however, I will try and find the books to peruse them once more. I'm still intrigued as to how Jdonn explains the bidding and play records ...

1. R-S illegally passed information but refrained from acting on it ...
   • Because they knew they were being closely observed (as Flint told Reese at an early stage)?
     
   • Because Reese was gathering material for a book on Cheating (as David Rex-Taylor later claimed)?
     

[*] R-S (great players) passed and used information, illegally, but ...

• ;) So circumspectly as to be indiscernable from analysis of their actions? or
  
• :) So ineptly that they consistently lost imps on the boards adduced to demonstrate their cheating (also, overall, the sessions in this competition that they played together were conspicuously unsuccessful)?
  

[*] :) R-S (former World Champions) weren't American; hence must be cheats?

[jdonn]

R-S claimed that most of the press-photographs where posed and anyway they admitted that they didn't hold their cards consistently.

Do you know anyone else ever from anywhere who admits that? And remember this is inconsistent from board to board (and partner to partner!), not day to day.

 

A subsequent magazine article claimed (as far as I remember) that

You wouldn't know which magazine by chance would you?

 

Grips vary between players and many players vary their grasp.

The second part is ridiculous. Show me the player that even thinks about his grasp as he plays. It's like saying you vary how you walk from step to step.

 

The most common number of fingers shown is between two and four.

Is it ever spread out with space between the fingers?

 

I'm still intrigued as to how Jdonn explains the bidding and play records ...

1. 
    
    
   
2. R-S illegally passed information but refrained from acting on it ...
   • 
      
     
   • Because they knew they were being closely observed (as Flint told Reese at an early stage)?
      
     
   • Because Reese was gathering material for a book on Cheating (as David Rex-Taylor later claimed)?
      
     

 

[*] R-S (great players) passed and used information, illegally, but ...

• 
   
  
• ;) So circumspectly as to be indiscernable from analysis of their actions? or
   
  
• :) So ineptly that they consistently lost imps on the boards adduced to demonstrate their cheating (also, overall, the sessions in this competition that they played together were conspicuously unsuccessful)?
   
  

2A. Except it wasn't indiscernable once it was picked up on, but it is simply unprovable.

 

I audit the revenue at a large casino. There have been instances of catching employee theft that had been going on for years, and suddenly one day something simply stood out to someone. After that point it was completely obvious to the person who caught it and those who were told, even though they had never noticed before under similar observation. It's like the opposite of the prior ufo example, if someone isn't looking for something then they are unlikely to notice evidence of it.

 

[*] :) R-S (former World Champions) weren't American; hence must be cheats?

 

May I ask what country you are from so I can start insulting it every chance I get, or is it only funny in one direction and if smiley faces are included?

[Cascade]

Instead try this. Simply look at the pictures in Truscott's book. Note how Reese and Schapiro hold the cards (including when playing with someone other than each other.) Then come up with an explanation for how the cards are being held other than cheating in some way.

 

That is 100% compelling without even considering the hands themselves.

A few photographs chosen by someone with a vested interest, an accuser, out of hundreds of hands played in this event is hardly likely to be compelling and far less 100% even before you consider that some of the hands do not suggest that there was any cheating.

[nige1]

Do you know anyone else ever from anywhere who admits that? And remember this is inconsistent from board to board (and partner to partner!), not day to day.

Please look around you when you play, Jdonn. How is it relevant whether they admit it? :)

You wouldn't know which magazine by chance would you?

Sorry :( Had I remembered I would have given a reference -- as I have done consistently so far :)

The second part is ridiculous. Show me the player that even thinks about his grasp as he plays. It's like saying you vary how you walk from step to step.

Most people vary their walk from step to step depending on terrain. How is it relevant whether they think about it? and how can you tell? :)

Is it ever spread out with space between the fingers?

This is getting silly :( It is you, Jdonn, who is relying on photographic evidence to prove your point. If you want to make a case, then please do your own research :)

2A. Except it wasn't indiscernable once it was picked up on, but it is simply unprovable. I audit the revenue at a large casino. There have been instances of catching employee theft that had been going on for years, and suddenly one day something simply stood out to someone. After that point it was completely obvious to the person who caught it and those who were told, even though they had never noticed before under similar observation. It's like the opposite of the prior ufo example, if someone isn't looking for something then they are unlikely to notice evidence of it.

That is a poor analogy to Athene's suggestion. A better analogy: if you were told exactly how the theft was done, would you have a fair chance of finding the culprit? :)

May I ask what country you are from so I can start insulting it every chance I get, or is it only funny in one direction and if smiley faces are included?

If you summon up the energy, you can easily aquire that information by clicking on nige1. What insult? Americans (Soloway, Hamman, Wolff, and so on) have been accusing successful Europeans players of cheating for decades. I remind you, Jdonn, that it is you, who label people insane when we disagree with you. The smileys are because I enjoy argument provided it is friendly :)

[jjbrr]

Smilies should be limited to ~3/post else they become annoying and a distraction. I guess this is a useful tactic for a post with a lot of words that doesn't say a whole lot of anything at all.

[jdonn]

Nigel do you know what a rhetorical question is? When I ask something like "Do any other bridge players hold their cards with space between their fingers?" I don't want you to do research and come to me with a conclusion. It's a way of pointing out that the answer is no, people don't do that.

 

Next point, when people perform a subconcious action, they don't do it noticeably differently from one instance to the next. The walking is a perfect analogy. When people hold their cards they are generally not giving concious thought to how it is done, and as such it is done in virtually the same way every time. No matter what your imaginary magazine says. Unless you are Reese and Schapiro playing specifically with each other, that is.

 

My casino analogy was not poor at all despite your desire to misapply it. My point was in response to defenders of R&S who ask things like "if they were so obviously cheating for so long how did they go undetected?" The point being that things like that are only obvious in hindsight, but very difficult to detect before you know what you are looking for. You pervert the analogy by trying to apply it to a question that it's not designed to answer, as clearly the stealing of objects and the stealing of information can not be caught in the same way.

 

And yes, the smileys are getting out of hand.

[nige1]

Smilies should be limited to ~3/post else they become annoying and a distraction. I guess this is a useful tactic for a post with a lot of words that doesn't say a whole lot of anything at all.

:( :( :)

[fred]

Given that the photographs prove certain guilt to Fred

Actually if you reread my post, what I said was that, IMO, the photographs should convince an experienced player that either R+S were cheating or they were joking.

 

IMO it is beyond impossible that nothing was going on.

 

I mentioned "experienced players" because I suspect most experienced have noticed that:

 

1) almost all players hold their cards the same way

2) virtually no players dramatically vary the way they hold their cards from hand to hand

 

The fact (assuming you are willing to accept the photos and eyewitness accounts described in Truscott's book as facts) that BOTH Reese and Shapiro did 2) above in a near identical manner to one another means that we have entered the realm of the impossible.

 

The fact (assuming...) that the way they did this just happened to correspond to how many hearts they held...

 

Anyways, maybe they were just playing a joke on everyone, but I think an experienced player would have to be either truly naive or believe that Truscott fabricated evidence to conclude that nothing unusual was going on.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[nige1]

Nigel do you know what a rhetorical question is?

:( :( :)

[TimG]

R-S claimed that most of the press-photographs where posed and anyway they admitted that they didn't hold their cards consistently.

Do you know anyone else ever from anywhere who admits that? And remember this is inconsistent from board to board (and partner to partner!), not day to day.

After reading both books, I wondered whether players always held their cards the same way. I noticed that I did not. But, I knew I was being observed; I was consciousness of the way I held my cards which invalidated the observation (in my opinion). So, I watched the way my partner at the time held her cards. It was not always the same way, either.

 

In both cases, the variation was much less than that shown by the pictures in Truscott's book. I think you are right that most players hold their cards very nearly the same way from hand to hand, event to event. But, I think there is a small portion of players who generally vary the way they hold their cards in at least minor ways and an even smaller portion of players who may vary their grip significantly (these are mostly those who fidget and they might vary their grip many times during a single hand).

[jdonn]

I think one of the last adjectives anyone would use to describe Reese was "fidgety".

[the hog]

The only compelling evidence would the equivalent of a double-blind trial (as used in drugs testing, etc).

 

i.e.  give ALL the hand records of the competition to a strong bridge player who doesn't know ANY of the surrounding details.

 

Then ask him: "which of all these pairs playing in this event are signalling length in the heart suit?"

 

If that player, JUST from the hand records, says "clearly pair X, playing for team Y, are up to something", then there might be a case.

This is 100% wrong, examination of the hands is in fact the LEAST compelling evidence.

 

This wasn't talking on the phone while playing on BBO, this was a world championship. Reese and Schapiro were great players, they wouldn't take such blatant actions that it would be obvious something was strange. Examining the hands just leads to arguments and counter arguments about what one who was/wasn't cheating may have been thinking when they chose the action.

 

Instead try this. Simply look at the pictures in Truscott's book. Note how Reese and Schapiro hold the cards (including when playing with someone other than each other.) Then come up with an explanation for how the cards are being held other than cheating in some way.

 

That is 100% compelling without even considering the hands themselves.

No its not Josh. People have different mannerisms when holding and playing cards. If you wait long enough you can take photos that show anything. I bet if I watched you play for a few sessions I could take enough photos to prove that you cheat.

 

 

Fred:

"I mentioned "experienced players" because I suspect most experienced have noticed that:

 

1) almost all players hold their cards the same way

2) virtually no players dramatically vary the way they hold their cards from hand to hand"

 

Really? I don't 1) . Many people I know don't as well. A number of people I know do 2)

[Lobowolf]

Is the general consensus on Rex-Taylor (from the "innocent" camp) that he just made up the explanation to get attention?

[jdonn]

I should apologize for saying "insane". It appears nothing more than a serious case of being in denial is adequate to believe they didn't cheat. Ron has now resorted to, ahem, truly compelling arguments!

[Lobowolf]

There's good reason it's "desirable" to maintain an "unvarying manner."

[Lobowolf]

truly compelling arguments!

Reminds me of one of my favorite Dilbert cartoon strips:

 

 

 

Dilbert: Here's a poem I wrote. What do you think?

 

Dogbert: It's been said that a hundred monkeys typing on a hundred typewriters for a hundred million years would eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespeare.

 

Dilbert: Yes, but what about MY poem?

 

Dogbert: Two monkeys, eight minutes.

[the hog]

I should apologize for saying "insane". It appears nothing more than a serious case of being in denial is adequate to believe they didn't cheat. Ron has now resorted to, ahem, truly compelling arguments!

Josh, I didn't mean that you cheat, of course I don't believe that, so don't be silly!. I meant that if I observe you for a while I am sure I can get photos which some could easily interpret as evidence of cheating. People see what they want to see, and Truscott comes across as a particularly nasty piece of work.

[the hog]

truly compelling arguments!

Reminds me of one of my favorite Dilbert cartoon strips:

 

 

 

Dilbert: Here's a poem I wrote. What do you think?

 

Dogbert: It's been said that a hundred monkeys typing on a hundred typewriters for a hundred million years would eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespeare.

 

Dilbert: Yes, but what about MY poem?

 

Dogbert: Two monkeys, eight minutes.

I guess in your case it is one monkey and 30 seconds?

[fred]

2) virtually no players dramatically vary the way they hold their cards from hand to hand"

 

Many people I know don't as well. A number of people I know do 2)

I will take your word for it, Ron, but I very much doubt that any of these "number of players" are anywhere near being among the best players in the world (as Reese and Shapiro clearly were in 1965).

 

Any top player would find it beyond embarassing to learn that he/she did this and, upon learning so, would certainly take whatever steps were necessary to stop behaving like a moron.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com