What happened in Tenerife?

[42]

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.

These are also my thoughts. Does anyone know more facts now? I still cannot (or better do not want to) believe that such strong players need cheating and invent a kind of system, no! But it may prove another time that I am naive.

To be a member of the appeal's committee must have been some horror...

Caren

[Flame]

I still cannot (or better do not want to) believe that such strong players need cheating and invent a kind of system, no! But it may prove another time that I am naive.

To be a member of the appeal's committee must have been some horror...

Caren

sometimes being very talented is what drive players to cheat.

Bridge is a game of chances and its a game of which you cant use your talent to full potential on many hands, cheating helpss you use your talent, you are playing a different game then others call it bridge+, a game with more tasks then just bridge ,look at partner signaling, signal yourself, and keep opponents from seeing it,its also takes a great acting talent, and you have to be a cold player not to get nervous cheating, this mean you have bigger field to use your talent.

This is my thory based on knowing one super talented kid (maybe the most talented in my country) who was caught cheating.

Im ofcourse against cheating.

[Guest Jlall]

Bocchi and Duboin are one of the most honest pairs I have ever played against. Let's not associate what happened with B-L with Bocchi and Duboin. If they were such great friends isn't it unlikely Bocchi would say the things that he did?

It's hard to define B-D and B-L as "friends".

 

Some years ago, Buratti Lanzarotti went to play with the national team of Spain because they felt unfairly excluded from the Blue Team and it's easy to imagine this does not do good to their relationship with other top italians.

 

"Rivalry" (hope this is the correct term in english, check out on Babelfish "rivalità", the italian word ;) ) is a better term.

 

BTW I have very high consideration of Lanzarotti, not because he is italian (there are a few other italian players for which I would not say the same thing).

 

Just my 2 cents

that was my point. that they are not friends.

[Chamaco]

that was my point. that they are not friends.

Sure.

I was supporting your point with specific arguments.

[cherdano]

that was my point. that they are not friends.

Sure.

I was supporting your point with specific arguments.

Shhh. Now the two of you start this agreeing game too...Not even in a thread about cheating accusations can we have some controversy...the world is getting so boring...

[inquiry]

Are you saying a legal court of law can judge the cheating accusation better than a bridge appeals committee?

What I was saying addressed the following point in your earlier post

 

In the end the matter was subject to trial and the court has judged there was enough evidence that the pair accquired, transmited and used unauthorized information. Regardless of your judgement of the situation... it was not up to you to judge, but to them.

 

They were not in court, and a judge did not judge them. They went before a committtee and the committee found enough evidence to take action. This does not mean the committee was right (or wrong) in their assessment. But it was not COURT, and enough evidence here is speculative at best.

 

The courts may just deal with the question were the pair given due process.The answer to that is probably yes. Clearly a court will not judge issues of "Bridge", but a WBF panel may very well dig deeper. I didn't notice any world class players on the committee did I over look one?

 

Anyway. somehting I find amusing is the credit given to the statement that diamonds are always splitting badly in this tournment. I sure hope teh proceedings were taped, because that had to be said in joking manner, to bring a little humor to a serious situation. This statement seems now to be the lynch pin of the case, proving he had no answer for why he took this line of play. No World Class player would say such a thing in seriousness.

 

Further he provided several reasons for taking his line. HE needed to win by 20 VP and this was last set and the score was close (now that we know they played this board early rather than late). West asked many questions about the location of the heart king, something that seems odd (still seems odd to me). The odds of finding QT, QTx or Qxxx or QTxx onside versus 2-2 or 1-3 off sdie with stiff queen, while inferior is not THAT inferior if they really need a lot of big swings in a short set of boards to be totally outrageous that you might try for this, expecially given the grilling about the heart king.

 

If the committee really relied on the bad diamond split quote to base their ruling, the tape better show it was said in seriousness... I doubt that it was.

[omeroj]

I think that the bridge appeals committee has reason, also I would have voted for the 18 to 0.

 

Omero

[whereagles]

Ben, I really don't understand what you're saying... but never mind.

[david_c]

Anyway. somehting I find amusing is the credit given to the statement that diamonds are always splitting badly in this tournment. I sure hope teh proceedings were taped, because that had to be said in joking manner, to bring a little humor to a serious situation.

I don't see why this can't have been serious. If you're contemplating making an anti-percentage play, and you're unsure whether it's the right thing to do, then why shouldn't you take into account how the diamonds have been breaking throughout the tournament? It's a bit like playing for the queen to lie over the jack in a two-way finesse situation. Mathematically, there's no basis for it at all, but if you're slightly superstitious then these sorts of things might genuinely affect your reasoning.

[McBruce]

The diamonds breaking badly comment is by no means the only silly ailbi presented by B-L. This is what I wrote yesterday on rgb:

 

...

 

Possibly the best evidence here is the silly (I'm being charitable here) alibis given by declarer (South) and dummy (North):

 

-- North explained that all through the day, when dummy, he had laid both arms on the table and rested his head on them.

 

-- (South) "Diamonds are always badly divided in this tournament."

 

-- North told the Committee he had only 20% vision in his left eye, and the red honours were all the same to him from that side.

 

...and yet...

 

-- When confronted with East's statement, North denied that he had looked at East's cards.

 

...leading one to naturally wonder why the previous statement was even made! And then we have the obligatory shocked team official:

 

-- The Coach of North/South, in name of their Captain (who was absent), explained that he ... had never heard allegations of this kind in 30 years' work for the federation and this particular team.

 

It all seems like 1965 all over again, doesn't it? Where have we come in the meantime? One side accuses, the other side denies: the Committee decides based on who they believe and whether they would lead the J♦. Nobody seems to care about whether the gestures were actually made, because even with screens and bid-boxes that is still completely unprovable.

 

As long as the playing conditions are as they are, some cheating, and some allegations of cheating, will continue. We'll never have a provable case no matter how much indirect evidence we collect. Wouldn't it be better if we had some video to look at, or at least a kibitzer or two to ask? No other sport allows its major championships to be played incognito, with the officials on call.

 

...

 

(North, Lanzarotti, was dummy.)

 

"North explained that all through the day, when dummy, he had laid both arms on the table and rested his head on them." I assume this explanation followed some sort of question about the position of his arms. My next question would be "from this position, how on earth did you manage to play the cards from dummy when called by declarer? Telekinesis?" ;)

 

On the question of looking at his screenmate's hand, we have this: "When confronted with East's statement, North denied that he had looked at East's cards." However, Lanzarotti also felt the need to add that "he had only 20% vision in his left eye, and the red honours were all the same to him from that side." Maybe he only leaned over far enough to look with his left eye, but wait: We had the A♥ lead and a discouraging 8♥ (I assume it was discouraging as West asked several questions before switching at trick two) from East. Assuming from this declarer has the KQ♥, from North's point of view, what other outstanding red honour is there?

 

Don't get me wrong--I would much prefer having a neutral kibitzer's testimony or a videotape as evidence than the statements from both sides and one antipercentage play, even in this case when the accused's alibis are not quite up to the standard of "America's Dumbest Criminals."

[inquiry]

I don't see why this can't have been serious.

Because

 

Mathematically, there's no basis for it at all,

 

These guys don;t get where they are by ignoring the percentages (and mathematics). It is nothing like

 

It's a bit like playing for the queen to lie over the jack in a two-way finesse situation.

 

Because there, the mathematics is the same, queen can be in either hand. Always play it over the jack, you are right half the time. Blindly guess where it is, you are right have the time. Adopting that silly little rule just keeps you from agonising over a 50=50 guess.

 

No, an world class player who wins consistently does not let superstitions get in the way of the correct play, or they wouldn't be where they are.

[cherdano]

Further he provided several reasons for taking his line. HE needed to win by 20 VP and this was last set and the score was close (now that we know they played this board early rather than late). West asked many questions about the location of the heart king, something that seems odd (still seems odd to me). The odds of finding QT, QTx or Qxxx or QTxx onside versus 2-2 or 1-3 off sdie with stiff queen, while inferior is not THAT inferior if they really need a lot of big swings in a short set of boards to be totally outrageous that you might try for this, expecially given the grilling about the heart king.

Let's go through his reasons:

This was apparently the 3rd board of an 8 board match. They would need to gain 15 IMPs in 8 boards to win with 20 VPs, probably 11-12 to win with 19VPs. I don't think world class players starts making inferior plays for swinging at this point?

Running the Jack is a 30%-44% play (depending on what RHO does with QTx), while the correct line is 52% (I am not absolutely sure about the percentages, depends also on plan in the second round if the Queen covers).

I am not sure in which order they played the boards, but given this was the 3rd, probably 21-24 then 17-20; this is also consistent with the results of this match and his RHO losing focus after this board. In 21, at B-L's table their opponents made 3NT exactly, with 6♥, 6♣cold, and 4♥+2, 6♥= 6♣= normal scores (plus some overcostly sacrifice potential in spades for his side), so they should expect at least to gain 2 IMPs, but potentially a non-vuln slam swing. In board 22, their opponents made 3♣ while B-L could make 3♠, but also go down in 2♠ if the defense finds their heart ruffs -- so only pessimistically a partscore loss. IMHO this makes the claim that the first 2 boards were bad for them almost a lie.

On the deal itself, well look for the Traveller

It is a borderline slam, and in fact less than half of the field bid to 6♦. Why risk this success with making a clear anti-percentage play? (And in fact, their mexican 2♦ opening had worked nicely for the Italians me thinks.)

He claimed the lead of the ♥A was odd. To me, it looks entirely normal (dummy has shown a 2nd suit with MSS after all, I suspect). However, you don't have to trust me, on the traveller you will see that almost everyone led ♥A when 6♦ was declared by South. Further, why should a defender holding ♦x be LESS likely to lead ♥A, than one holding ♦Qx? If anything, I would suspect the opposite.

Finally, the questions about the ♥K. I can't see any reason why this induce one to play LHO for a singleton diamond, as declarer claimed. But then, table feel is something highly subjective, and maybe Ben can explain why he thinks this is indeed an indicator for the diamond play. Do you think a defender holding ♦Qx would just sit back and hope for his diamond trick? I don't think so, especially as he knows they have a 9-card fit. (As an aside, even if LHO knows declarer has ♥K, he may still want to know whether his partner knows this, too, as that might affect the interpretation of his signal...)

 

I cannot see follow a single of the reasons he gave for playing this line.

Of course, one might still argue that he just made a silly play (we have seen sillier plays on vuegraph for sure -- though by lesser players perhaps), and went zzzzzk when being confronted with the accusation of cheating.

 

Arend

[david_c]

No, an world class player who wins consistently does not let superstitions get in the way of the correct play, or they wouldn't be where they are.

But it's not at all clear what the "correct play" is here, if you take the match situation into account. Perhaps declarer thought that the decision was very close. If after all his deliberations he was still unsure what the correct play was, he might well have been swayed by a silly thing like this. I don't see why this would be so incoceivable for a top player, seeing that the situation is much more complicated than a simple calculation of percentages.

[luis]

I would like to have a transcript of what was said in the comitee, cheaters usually have a very prepared defense for his case while honest players facing accusations say all sort of incoherent things and strange comments.

So saying that not having a good excuse for the play is self-incriminating is a very doubtful dedeuction that they made if that was the case. You have to proof they are guilty not ask them to proof their innocence. I'm not saying they are either guilty or innocent I'm saying I'm not convinced at all by the evidence I've seen so far.

Hanging an inocent pair would be 100 times worst for bridge than letting cheaters go.

[cherdano]

I would like to have a transcript of what was said in the comitee, cheaters usually have a very prepared defense for his case while honest players facing accusations say all sort of incoherent things and strange comments.

I don't think cheaters are prepared to defend themselves - they just don't expect to get caught. Well maybe aside from some blanko defenses like "was playing for a swing, table feel told me..." ;) I suspect you can be right about honest persons, however.

[junyi_zhu]

Further he provided several reasons for taking his line. HE needed to win by 20 VP and this was last set and the score was close (now that we know they played this board early rather than late). West asked many questions about the location of the heart king, something that seems odd (still seems odd to me). The odds of finding QT, QTx or Qxxx or QTxx onside versus 2-2 or 1-3 off sdie with stiff queen, while inferior is not THAT inferior if they really need a lot of big swings in a short set of boards to be totally outrageous that you might try for this, expecially given the grilling about the heart king.

Let's go through his reasons:

This was apparently the 3rd board of an 8 board match. They would need to gain 15 IMPs in 8 boards to win with 20 VPs, probably 11-12 to win with 19VPs. I don't think world class players starts making inferior plays for swinging at this point?

Running the Jack is a 30%-44% play (depending on what RHO does with QTx), while the correct line is 52% (I am not absolutely sure about the percentages, depends also on plan in the second round if the Queen covers).

I am not sure in which order they played the boards, but given this was the 3rd, probably 21-24 then 17-20; this is also consistent with the results of this match and his RHO losing focus after this board. In 21, at B-L's table their opponents made 3NT exactly, with 6♥, 6♣cold, and 4♥+2, 6♥= 6♣= normal scores (plus some overcostly sacrifice potential in spades for his side), so they should expect at least to gain 2 IMPs, but potentially a non-vuln slam swing. In board 22, their opponents made 3♣ while B-L could make 3♠, but also go down in 2♠ if the defense finds their heart ruffs -- so only pessimistically a partscore loss. IMHO this makes the claim that the first 2 boards were bad for them almost a lie.

On the deal itself, well look for the Traveller

It is a borderline slam, and in fact less than half of the field bid to 6♦. Why risk this success with making a clear anti-percentage play? (And in fact, their mexican 2♦ opening had worked nicely for the Italians me thinks.)

He claimed the lead of the ♥A was odd. To me, it looks entirely normal (dummy has shown a 2nd suit with MSS after all, I suspect). However, you don't have to trust me, on the traveller you will see that almost everyone led ♥A when 6♦ was declared by South. Further, why should a defender holding ♦x be LESS likely to lead ♥A, than one holding ♦Qx? If anything, I would suspect the opposite.

Finally, the questions about the ♥K. I can't see any reason why this induce one to play LHO for a singleton diamond, as declarer claimed. But then, table feel is something highly subjective, and maybe Ben can explain why he thinks this is indeed an indicator for the diamond play. Do you think a defender holding ♦Qx would just sit back and hope for his diamond trick? I don't think so, especially as he knows they have a 9-card fit. (As an aside, even if LHO knows declarer has ♥K, he may still want to know whether his partner knows this, too, as that might affect the interpretation of his signal...)

 

I cannot see follow a single of the reasons he gave for playing this line.

Of course, one might still argue that he just made a silly play (we have seen sillier plays on vuegraph for sure -- though by lesser players perhaps), and went zzzzzk when being confronted with the accusation of cheating.

 

Arend

I think your reasoning is reasonable. To me, this 6D is just marginal. Not everybody would bid it. And there is no reason to assume that their opps would land in the same contract. And even if they land in the same contract, it's still way too early for a 8 board match to take an abnormal action in board 3. So the defence by north is rather weak I'd say. For me, I'd probably stay at 5D or 4NT because when I do kickback RKC, I'd find that we miss one KC and trump Q.

[mike777]

I would like to have a transcript of what was said in the comitee, cheaters usually have a very prepared defense for his case while honest players facing accusations say all sort of incoherent things and strange comments.

So saying that not having a good excuse for the play is self-incriminating is a very doubtful dedeuction that they made if that was the case. You have to proof they are guilty not ask them to proof their innocence. I'm not saying they are either guilty or innocent I'm saying I'm not convinced at all by the evidence I've seen so far.

Hanging an inocent pair would be 100 times worst for bridge than letting cheaters go.

1) The OPP's felt they had enough evidence to justify the final judgement.

2) The committee felt they had enough evidence to justify the final judgement.

3) If the present process is deeply and fatally flawed, what is better?

4) Multiple eyewitness accounts are often confusing, misleading and open to many interpretations.

5) Multiple camera angles are often confusing, misleading and open to many interpretations.

6) Of course more evidence is better than less but we are fooling ourselves if we think we are going to have anything near a complete or final answer.

7) If multiple eyewitness and multiple cameras will not give us a final answer and they do not , how can we expect more evidence will give us a complete one?

8) Your last point sounds very noble but not sure if it is true or not or even noble. Are you saying bridge can survive 101 top class cheating pairs but cannot survive hanging one innocent pair?

[luis]

I would like to have a transcript of what was said in the comitee, cheaters usually have a very prepared defense for his case while honest players facing accusations say all sort of incoherent things and strange comments.

So saying that not having a good excuse for the play is self-incriminating is a very doubtful dedeuction that they made if that was the case. You have to proof they are guilty not ask them to proof their innocence. I'm not saying they are either guilty or innocent I'm saying I'm not convinced at all by the evidence I've seen so far.

Hanging an inocent pair would be 100 times worst for bridge than letting cheaters go.

1) The OPP's felt they had enough evidence to justify the final judgement.

2) The committee felt they had enough evidence to justify the final judgement.

3) If the present process is deeply and fatally flawed, what is better?

4) Multiple eyewitness accounts are often confusing, misleading and open to many interpretations.

5) Multiple camera angles are often confusing, misleading and open to many interpretations.

6) Of course more evidence is better than less but we are fooling ourselves if we think we are going to have anything near a complete or final answer.

7) If multiple eyewitness and multiple cameras will not give us a final answer and they do not , how can we expect more evidence will give us a complete one?

8) Your last point sounds very noble but not sure if it is true or not or even noble. Are you saying bridge can survive 101 top class cheating pairs but cannot survive hanging one innocent pair?

All you say is enough for a comitee to declare a foul board, for example because dummy "may" have taken a peek at his opponents cards and they claim that dummy "may" have transmited information to declarer since they did took a low percentage but succesful line the comitee may declare a foul board based on tha facts they have already published in the bulletin.

But this is not enough to disqualify the whole team or the pair which is saying that they cheat. I would like to see more examples of signals, strange gestures, strange results etc. I'm strongly inclined to think the comitee should have acted in a more subtle way and put that pair under undisclosed observation, taking notes of their positions, gestures etc and carefully recording all the results. Then they would be able to take a decision and present all the evidence they collected for their decision.

[McBruce]

Luis: I would like to have a transcript of what was said in the comitee, cheaters usually have a very prepared defense for his case while honest players facing accusations say all sort of incoherent things and strange comments.

 

That doesn't sound like a scientific method. In fact, I am quite amazed by the argument, "what would a real cheater do? certainly not this" which we see made in this case and by Reese-Shapiro apologists.

 

If you play bridge at a high level successfully, you MUST not make gestures or movements that could be misinterpreted. Even if a committee doesn't get you, hearsay will. And yet what do we hear about this pair? They habitually put their heads down on the table. They look at defenders cards without asking when dummy. Having done so, they deny it, but then in almost the same breath mention that they have 20% vision in one eye. They "rest" their right arm on their left forearm so that three fingers point to the player with three trumps, and they do this in three different and distinct ways, coincidentally while partner, on the other side of a screen, is "napping" while thinking about a textbook decision, head conveniently placed so that he can see the fingers clearly through the partition.

 

I too do not say that one hand is enough to call them cheats. But an expert player should know better than to make any one of those gestures, let alone six or seven in fifteen seconds.

 

Luis again: So saying that not having a good excuse for the play is self-incriminating is a very doubtful dedeuction that they made if that was the case. You have to proof they are guilty not ask them to proof their innocence. I'm not saying they are either guilty or innocent I'm saying I'm not convinced at all by the evidence I've seen so far. Hanging an inocent pair would be 100 times worst for bridge than letting cheaters go.

 

The pair was expelled for passing and apparently using unauthorized information; the word cheating is not mentioned. Even if one considers the evidence against using the signals as flimsy, by way of argung that the questions alerted declarer to the bad break, the signals were still passed according to the committee's finding.

 

At each stage (not just the reason for the anti-percentage play) the North-South pair gave unconvincing responses:

 

--on the reason for the play, the diamonds-breaking-badly comment, the 'need a swing' comment with only two boards played

 

--on whether dummy had peeked, a flat denial followed by an excuse involving poor eyesight

 

--on whether signals were passed, an excuse that this dummy always takes that particular posture, one which makes it impossible to play cards without abandoning the posture, and can hardly be restful if you have to lift your head thirteen times before play ends.

 

The committee decided that Law 73B2 ("The gravest possible offense is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion.") had been broken, based on the indirect evidence. If all this, from the peeking to the finger tapping to the declarer nap, is a big coincidence, then the North-South pair have been expelled without reason--but they have only themselves to blame.

[cherdano]

I'm strongly inclined to think the comitee should have acted in a more subtle way and put that pair under undisclosed observation, taking notes of their positions, gestures etc and carefully recording all the results. Then they would be able to take a decision and present all the evidence they collected for their decision.

So if they only cheat one very few decisive boards of the event (note that this could well have been the crucial board for qualifying to the KO for them), you want to wait until they find the need to cheat a 2nd time in the Semi-Finals? In the mean time, their opponents from Israel are out of the event. And of course, they may stop cheating once they feel being observed... (And of course changed their signals after they could feel their opponent may have caught them cheating.)

 

No, they had to take a decision immediately. In fact, I doubt it was formally possible for them not to hold a hearing right away.

 

Arend

[mike777]

I would like to see more examples of signals, strange gestures, strange results etc. I'm strongly inclined to think the comitee should have acted in a more subtle way and put that pair under undisclosed observation, taking notes of their positions, gestures etc and carefully recording all the results. Then they would be able to take a decision and present all the evidence they collected for their decision.

Committees do not have the power to do any of the above.

1) You want committees to meet in secret session to decide to do this?

2) Have secret talks

3) Hire secret agents to secretly follow around players

4) record all of this in secret

5) Who trains these secret agents?

6) Are the results secret or public if the pair is innocent?

7) What tournament has money and time and people for all this secret stuff?

8) Are the agents and commitee members secret or what?

9) When I get the bad board and have my doubts about that Zia play how I do all of this stuff in secret?

[fifee]

The press release from the disciplinary hearing can be found at : http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05T...ns/28TuePg3.htm

 

 

It's a sad day for our sport when something with these ramifications happens. There are plenty of lawyers standing in the wings these days and reputations and careers can be at stake.

 

Why not rent rooms at casinos for major bridge tournaments? They have interesting entertainment other than bridge games and they have the hidden cameras in the ceiling.

[epeeist]

Even someone who totally believes EW and believes NS are probably cheaters should still be concerned.

 

EW accused NS of cheating. Only evidence was what EW said and the fact that S made an anti-percentage play.

 

That's it. Read the "facts" and "opinion" section of either the press release or the bulletin uday earlier posted a link to.

 

Look at it the other way.

 

Let's say on another hand E had made an anti-percentage play. NS (Lanzarotti-Buratti) accused them of cheating. Only evidence was what NS said and that E made an anti-percentage play. Since it was an anti-percentage play, by definition E would have no "legitimate" reason for making the play! Would everyone here who agrees with the decision be happy if the EW Israelis had been punished based on a simple accusation by Lanzarotti-Buratti? Why are the EW team automatically credible and LB not?

 

My point is, that I consider it dangerous and unfair for a very serious cheating accusation to be accepted based only on what the players say. Because then you get into the situation where anytime such an accusation is made the judgment of the committee will be based upon the reputation (deserved or not) of the players involved! Anyone playing against LB can show each other their cards if they want with impunity because, hey, who's going to believe an accusation by LB?

 

As for the court analogy, in court testimony is upon oath or affirmation. And if one lies and that is later discovered one may be prosecuted for perjury. Unlike the situation with telling an appeals committee what you think happened.

 

For the reasons others have explained better, I consider the notion that making the "wrong" play is automatically suspect ridiculous. Is Zia guilty because he bids "bad" 3NT contracts and makes them?

 

I also haven't heard any explanation, WERE there other witnesses? Kibitzers, vugraph operator, anyone? If so, a fair process would have heard from them. If not, see my concerns above.

[mike777]

Even someone who totally believes EW and believes NS are probably cheaters should still be concerned.

 

EW accused NS of cheating. Only evidence was what EW said and the fact that S made an anti-percentage play.

 

That's it. Read the "facts" and "opinion" section of either the press release or the bulletin uday earlier posted a link to.

 

Look at it the other way.

 

Let's say on another hand E had made an anti-percentage play. NS (Lanzarotti-Buratti) accused them of cheating. Only evidence was what NS said and that E made an anti-percentage play. Since it was an anti-percentage play, by definition E would have no "legitimate" reason for making the play! Would everyone here who agrees with the decision be happy if the EW Israelis had been punished based on a simple accusation by Lanzarotti-Buratti? Why are the EW team automatically credible and LB not?

 

My point is, that I consider it dangerous and unfair for a very serious cheating accusation to be accepted based only on what the players say. Because then you get into the situation where anytime such an accusation is made the judgment of the committee will be based upon the reputation (deserved or not) of the players involved! Anyone playing against LB can show each other their cards if they want with impunity because, hey, who's going to believe an accusation by LB?

 

As for the court analogy, in court testimony is upon oath or affirmation. And if one lies and that is later discovered one may be prosecuted for perjury. Unlike the situation with telling an appeals committee what you think happened.

 

For the reasons others have explained better, I consider the notion that making the "wrong" play is automatically suspect ridiculous. Is Zia guilty because he bids "bad" 3NT contracts and makes them?

 

I also haven't heard any explanation, WERE there other witnesses? Kibitzers, vugraph operator, anyone? If so, a fair process would have heard from them. If not, see my concerns above.

What What?

1) LOl, there was much more evidence presented, read the facts.

2) The expert opp's feel justified with the decision based on the evidence

3) The expert committee feels justified with the decision based on the evidence.

4) Your comments basically say the opp's and committee based their decision on the basis of being idiots.

5) I have said in other posts, multiple eyewitness and multiple camera views are very often contradictory, confusing and open to many many interpretations and do not lead to more definitive evidence.

6) If you feel the process is fatally flawed ok, but more eyewitness testimony and camera views will resolve nothing. Setting up secret committees with secret people, secret agents, secret discussions will not be a better solution.

7) example: say the eyewitness and camera says head was on table and fingers on arm. That proves nothing more. All of the above could be very very innocent.

8) say the eyewitness and camera views are open to interpretation and confusing, which is often the case, so what?

[McBruce]

I would like to see more examples of signals, strange gestures, strange results etc. I'm strongly inclined to think the comitee should have acted in a more subtle way and put that pair under undisclosed observation, taking notes of their positions, gestures etc and carefully recording all the results. Then they would be able to take a decision and present all the evidence they collected for their decision.

This approach worked so well in Buenos Aires in 1965 that some people still believe that there is no correlation between the pages of notes and the hand records, and the photos of Reese and Shapiro holding their cards like nobody else ever has don't reveal a thing.

 

Who knows? Maybe there is video and the committee chose not to mention it publicly, but kept it in case of a lawsuit.