What happened in Tenerife?

[olegru]

Just curious,

In eurobridge.org site result of match between Barel and Lavazza is 18:0 looks very suspision. http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05T...=521&qroundno=6

Score on swangames.com is different.

http://www.swangames.com/rama/traveller.ph...406&direction=X

 

Do you know what happened?

[Gerben42]

Onno Eskes' post on rec.games.bridge says this:

 

Lavazza played team Barel, both struggling for qualification.

Buratti-Lanzarotti bid to a vulnerable 6D, missing one ace, with a

trump suit of AK9x opposite J8xxx. Buratti ran dJ... which happened to

be winning since his LHO had Q10x. All other declarers in 6D went down.

Team Barel called the director.

A special committee was formed to look into the case, and they decided

to barr Buratti-Lanzarotti from the teams event and adjust the match

score from 25-2 to 0-18. Jens Auken, who was a member of the committee,

appears to have said afterwards that Lanzarotti (dummy) had looked in

his opponents cards and then tapped a few times with three fingers on

his arm.

The Italians defended by saying they needed a big match score to

qualify, and therefore took a swingy play. However, Norberto Bocchi

called the action "Stupido" and suspected that Buratti must have heard

something in the noisy playing area on this trump position.

 

www.imp-bridge.nl (in Dutch)

 

Running the Jack wins 44% of the time, cashing AK wins 52% of the time.

 

Gerben

[Aberlour10]

Hi @ll

 

According to the information from the site of Polish Bridge Union,

the Apeal Committe disqualified the pair Buratti-Lanzarotti

and team Lavazza after a very strong incident on board #23...

 

One of the polish TD discriebes details of this situation on the site,

but unfortunately I am not able to translate it to english

(my english is rather poor)

 

 

http://www.pzbs.pl/wyniki/2005/zagranica/t.../relacje/03.htm

 

EDIT: Gerben gave the explaination in the same time, I wrote this posting :)

[inquiry]

If the story related here is true, this is an outrageous travesty of justice (unless there is soooo much more than what is shown). This was the next to the last hand on a qualifying event. And even if allowed their 16 imps they won this board, team Lavazza would have only won by 4 imps. And if they pushed this board they would have lost by more than 10. To quailfy, they not only needed a win, they needed a fairly high win. 11 VP would just not be enough.

 

The slam was surely to be bid at the other table (it was), and trailing in the match the CORRECT match strategy is to take this inferior line. To be accused of cheating under such circumstances is horrible. This is BRIDGE, where we all know, condition of contest, state of match, can dictate taking an inferior line from time to time.

[scoob]

does anyone have the full hands to post?

[inquiry]

does anyone have the full hands to post?

Swan bridge has the traveller for this hand from all tables...

http://www.swangames.com/rama/boardreview....no=6&boardno=23

 

As you can see, 6♦ was bid 12 times, and 6NT twice, in group A the hand was played a total of 44 times. So this was slam 14/44 times. 6♦ was also bid 12 times is group B.

 

Unfotunately, swan was covering the event, and while they have the results, and the opening lead, they don't have the hands displayed from the qualifying rounds here, like they did for earlier events at Teleride.

 

Ben

[whereagles]

Taking an anti-percentage line when in need of a swing is definitely GOOD strategy.

 

I remember in the match "Scientists vs Naturals", Chagas/Branco, playing for the Naturals team and needing a big swing, bid 6♣ where everything depended on bringing home this suit:

 

Axx

 

KJ9

 

Judging his opponents (Meckwell) to also be in slam, declarer ran the jack, hoping for an off-side queen, so as to finesse the 9 later. A 25% line, opposite the better 50% line of finessing the jack. This play is against the odds in isolation, but odds-on in a situation where you're trailing behind.

 

The finesse lost, by the way. Meckstroth took the usual jack finesse on the other room and.. it held ;)

[hrothgar]

If the story related here is true, this is an outrageous travesty of justice (unless there is soooo much more than what is shown). This was the next to the last hand on a qualifying event. And even if allowed their 16 imps they won this board, team Lavazza would have only won by 4 imps. And if they pushed this board they would have lost by more than 10. To quailfy, they not only needed a win, they needed a fairly high win. 11 VP would just not be enough.

 

The slam was surely to be bid at the other table (it was), and trailing in the match the CORRECT match strategy is to take this inferior line. To be accused of cheating under such circumstances is horrible. This is BRIDGE, where we all know, condition of contest, state of match, can dictate taking an inferior line from time to time.

All fine and dandy, however, there are a couple problems with this analysis

 

1. This discussion pre-supposes that Buratti-Lanzarotti have sufficient information to judge whether or not its appropriate to adopt a different line than the one employed at the other table.

 

2. There are a lot game theoretic aspects to this problem... Assume for the moment that both declarers know the "state of the match". Furthermore, both declarers are 100% sure that the other table is playing the same contract from the same direction. In this case, we have an interesting problem. The declarer of the side who is ahead wants to ensure that he adopts an identical strategy to the declarer of the "losing" side. The declarer of the side who is behind wants to ensure that he adopt a different line of play. The only way to do so is to adopt a mixed strategy. Both declarers need to randomize which line they take. The weighting depends on the degree to which one line is noticable superior (or inferior) as well as probability density function describing the relative scores of the two teams.

 

In short, its great to talk about such strategies, its much more difficult to apply them. More importantly, its very difficult to apply them in anything resembling an intelligent manner.

[Gerben42]

As it was, Lavazza was 29 IMPs ahead in the 8-board match when the board came and losing 16 IMPs would have endangered qualification where a flat board would not have.

[Guest Jlall]

How can we call this a travesty of justice when we don't even know the facts? I think the relevant part of the RGB post was Jens Auken (who was on the committee and knows the facts) saying dummy looked at the opps hand and tapped his arm with three fingers. Please. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I'm saying we have no idea and those "in the know" are in a much better position to make a decision than we are. There is obviously more to it than this, do you think they will just leak all of the details to the public? come on.

[hrothgar]

How can we call this a travesty of justice when we don't even know the facts? I think the relevant part of the RGB post was Jens Auken (who was on the committee and knows the facts) saying dummy looked at the opps hand and tapped his arm with three fingers. Please. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I'm saying we have no idea and those "in the know" are in a much better position to make a decision than we are. There is obviously more to it than this, do you think they will just leak all of the details to the public? come on.

Here is the most detailed information that I've run across

It was posted to the BLML by Konrad Ciborowksi

 

A sensational story has just appeared

on the site of Polish Bridge Union

by Slawomir Latala about

the disqualification of

the Buratti - Lanzarotti pair.

(I cannot find anything on the

Tenerife official website).

Here is my translation.

 

+==

 

The teams of Beral (Isreal)

and Lavazza (Italy) met

in the final round of Swiss teams.

Both teams needed big wins

to advance to the KO phase.

Deals 21-30 were played.

The first two deals were

gains for the Israeli

team and were followed deal #23:

 

 

Round 5, deal 23, both sides VUL,

South dealer

 

    Massimo Lanzarotti

 

        A3

        J10

        J8543

        KJ62

Jossi Roll          Ilan Bareket

87                  Q6542

A765                9843

7                  Q106

Q97543              8

 

        Andrea Buratti

        KJ109

        KQ2

        AK92

        A10

 

 

N S

--- 2D // multi

2H 2NT // 20-22 BAL

3S // minors

4D // D fit

4S // cue

5C // cue showing an odd number of KC

6D

pass

 

West cashed the HA and switched to a club. Buratti

won in dummy and played the DJ. Speaks the

Isreali defender, sitting East:

 

- Having spread the dummy Lanzarotti tilted

to have a peak into my hand. Though I never

intended to show him my cards I didn't make

any attempt to hide them. What struck me,

however, was that Lanzarotti, having seen

my cards touched his left forearm with three

middle fingers of his right hand. It was

a very unnatural gesture. Buratti

called for the DJ to which I played

low in my normal tempo. Buratti went

into a short tank, played small from

his hand, and claimed.

 

After this incident Bareket excused himself from the

table and talked to one of the floor

directors telling him the whole story.

This started an avalanche. The TD

informed the CTD who waited until

the end of the match and lodged

an official announcemet to the AC

(TDs are not allowed to make decisions

in cases like that). After hearings

lasting more than an hour the AC members

spent additional two hours discussing

the matter between them and

then came up with the following rulling:

 

a) the Lavazza team is expelled from

futher Team Competition during these

Championship;

;) Buratti – Lanzarotti are disqualified

from team competition (further sanctions

can only be taken by EBL Credential Committee)

c) adjust the final score of the match

to 18 : 0 VP for Israel.

 

 

Slawomir Latala

 

==+

 

 

I am not sure what :lol: means - this

statement is as unclear in Polish

as in my translation.

[inquiry]

How can we call this a travesty of justice when we don't even know the facts? I think the relevant part of the RGB post was Jens Auken (who was on the committee and knows the facts) saying dummy looked at the opps hand and tapped his arm with three fingers. Please. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, I'm saying we have no idea and those "in the know" are in a much better position to make a decision than we are. There is obviously more to it than this, do you think they will just leak all of the details to the public? come on.

Well. of course there could be more to the story. Which is why I added the caution .... unless there is soooo much more than what is shown.

 

But this "tap with three fingers" on his arm? Why not look to his Left, why not look to his right. Why not scratch his noise, why not look at his watch, why not turn a played card slightly off kilter. Why not, why not, why not.

 

Look, I don't know if anyone was cheating, but this is outrageous as stated if this is all there is. A devils advocate might say it wasn't the accused pair but the accusers who cheated. What? How is that possible? Consider this, first, after partner cashes the heart ace, show the dummy your cards (yes I see where he said dummy leaned over to look). Then if the contract makes, call the director and claim cheating. Some might say this way, EAST was using a safety play to make sure the contract didn't make. IF it goes down, nothing said, if it makes, call the director and say the dummy touched his cheeck, he coughed, he keep looking at WEST (or east), he scratched the top left hand side of his head.. He breathed too fast, he closed his eyes as if an trance... whatever, even touching himself with three fingers.

 

Now, I don't think the accusers cheated, this was just to show what assumptions and speculations people can make. If someone has been watching this pair, and this tapping of three fingers (and two, and four) happens and each time a winning line against the odds is found, ok, that is a .... soooooo much more. But what is written is simply too normal of a play late in close match. I see the match might not have been close (if it was going to have been 25-2 VP) that is more than 40 imps, in that case, if it was clear they were way ahead, the play makes no sense. It looked like it was 72 to 71 imps going into the last segment, but maybe i am missreading the scoring page.

 

Anyway, before peoples livelhood and reputations are damaged, it is good to find out the facts. One thing for sure, if I was on a jury and this was it, the total evidence, even if 100% agree he tapped fingers, I would find not guilty. People often drum their fingers. There has to be sooooo much more, or this is unbelievably shortsighted.

[Guest Jlall]

Well. of course there could be more to the story. Which is why I added the caution .... unless there is soooo much more than what is shown.

there COULD be more to the story? At the very least there is the testimony of the players which you did not hear. There is certainly more than what you know. This is the equivalent of saying if this (the news the media gives us) is all of the evidence, he is certainly guilty! Well, sure, but it obviously isn't.

 

But this "tap with three fingers" on his arm? Why not look to his Left, why not look to his right. Why not scratch his noise, why not look at his watch, why not turn a played card slightly off kilter. Why not, why not, why not.

 

This is just a fact of what happened at the table. To deny that it is suspicious that he looked at the hand and then made a very unnatural gesture of tapping 3 fingers on his arm is silly. It may mean nothing, but it certainly could mean something.

 

 

Look, I don't know if anyone was cheating, but this is outrageous as stated if this is all there is. A devils advocate might say it wasn't the accused pair but the accusers who cheated.

 

Yes, certainly possible, except for the testimony that the italian LOOKED into the hand of the israeli and the fact that the italian said NOTHING to the effect of "he showed me his cards." If this story was plausible, do you think he might have mentioned it? Oh, you don't know if he did, because you don't know any facts.

 

Anyway, before peoples livelhood and reputations are damaged, it is good to find out the facts. One thing for sure, if I was on a jury and this was it, the total evidence, even if 100% agree he tapped fingers, I would find not guilty. People often drum their fingers. There has to be sooooo much more, or this is unbelievably shortsighted.

 

Yes. If you were on the jury you would know the facts and could make an informed decision. The point of "if this was all the evidence" is pretty irrelevant since it obviously isnt (again, you didnt even hear what those at the table had to say, the most important evidence).

 

And yes, their livelihoods are on the line. In the past how often have the governing bodies taken any action like this. Not very often, for that very reason. History has shown that too LITTLE action has been taken in the past (see foot tappers), not too much. This is as it should be, but it lends credibility to the orginazations when the do take action.

[inquiry]

Well, reading the post with the hand from above, I am even more discouraged that justice was wronged. It looks like one guy noticed this and called it to the attention of the TD. No doubt kibitzers were around, who may have noticed the "unatural" act. But I thought, maybe, these guys were under investigation befroe this, and a spotter was amonst the kibitzers watching for something like this. The report seems fairly detailed of who did what and when.

 

What was left out, was who was called to the hearing? If just the four players, come on... this looks like a one hand accussation of cheating, where the winning line has at least a couple of logical reasons to support picking it.

[Guest Jlall]

Running the Jack wins 44% of the time, cashing AK wins 52% of the time.

 

Gerben

these percentages are wrong.

[luis]

This is so strange that I really don't know what to say...

I don't think a comitee can declare a pair cheated and ban them and eliminate the whole team for just one hand, that doesn't make any sense. Can they?

To understand this we, the people following the incident, need more information, maybe they were already being watched for previous accusations if there wasn't a previous incident I think that the only thing a comitee can do is declare the board foul and register the incident for a follow up investigation...

[whereagles]

Buratti-Lanzarotti do have stories of cheating accusations. None was proven, though.

[inquiry]

This is so strange that I really don't know what to say...

I don't think a comitee can declare a pair cheated and ban them and eliminate the whole team for just one hand, that doesn't make any sense. Can they?

Luis is right as usual... .this just doesn't make sense. My point too...

 

Of course, other details may be missing. Wait and see.. seems a good approach. But then, I may be the only american that worries that Reese and Shapiro got a raw deal.

[mike777]

With screens

1) How does dummy see both opp hands or know how many diamonds are outstanding?

2) How does partner see arm tapping?

[wojela]

Polish TD wrote about disqualification of Buratti – Lanzarotti. You can read

Open www.bridgebase.pl and press English version

or

http://www.bridgebase.pl/index.php?l=eng

[pclayton]

With screens

1) How does dummy see both opp hands or know how many diamonds are outstanding?

2) How does partner see arm tapping?

North sits on the same side of the screen as East and South as West, so North (if given the opportunity) can look into East's hand. As it turns out, East had the critical holding.

 

After the bidding is over, a hinged flap on the screen is turned up. My recollection is that this flap is about 6" high. During the play, you can see your partner's arms and midsection, but not the shoulders, head or face. Sometimes, after a hand, partners will talk to each other face to face. This involves a player craning his head sideways on the table to look up through the opening.

 

North could have seen transmitted info to partner if North's right hand was positioned near his left elbow, if North was sitting in a normal posture at the bridge player turning dummy.

[reisig]

Not knowing all the facts - makes it impossible to make a rational judgement. But if the 3 finger signal happened - and caused the winning play..then you have to ask yourself more questions. How did Buratti know that there was a signal unless this has happened before and was looking for it. Giving a signal has 2 sides - giving and receiving. The mere fact of seeing a signal is not enough ..He has to understand the meaning as well, which would indicate prior discussion of any signal. So, IF you think this is just ONE idle case...it can't be. All of this is meaningless if there was no "signal". But if so ...then this goes far deeper.

[cherdano]

This is so strange that I really don't know what to say...

I don't think a comitee can declare a pair cheated and ban them and eliminate the whole team for just one hand, that doesn't make any sense. Can they?

Luis is right as usual... .this just doesn't make sense. My point too...

Sorry, I don't follow here. I don't know the law but if we assue that the accusation is 100% right, I would find it outrageous if they only lost the good score in this specific board. For one thing that would make cheating a no-risk strategy -- after all just cheating on one hand per set would be enough to gain a huge advantage.

 

Arend

[inquiry]

This is so strange that I really don't know what to say...

I don't think a comitee can declare a pair cheated and ban them and eliminate the whole team for just one hand, that doesn't make any sense. Can they?

Luis is right as usual... .this just doesn't make sense. My point too...

Sorry, I don't follow here. I don't know the law but if we assue that the accusation is 100% right, I would find it outrageous if they only lost the good score in this specific board. For one thing that would make cheating a no-risk strategy -- after all just cheating on one hand per set would be enough to gain a huge advantage.

 

Arend

I think you misunderstand. It is not that they cheated on just one hand. If it is proven they cheated on just one hand, that is more than enough for the actions taken so far and more to follow.

 

It is just hard to imagine that, sans any other evidence before that this confirms, that this just one time event with one hand can be proof of cheating. At least in the Reese/Shapiro case, they got lots of people to watch future hands to try to confirm cheating was going on, so there was a record.

[uday]

http://www.eurobridge.org/bulletin/05_1_Te.../pdf/Bul_11.pdf