What happened in Tenerife?

[mike777]

Mike777,

 

Are you suggesting that the committee was incompetent?  How about putting some burden on participating players, as if that's news to them, that you do not make certain gestures, you do not do anything that might be misinterpreted as a signal?  I'd rather misread a camera film than to be acting on someone's word who has a stake in the outcome.  However, given the circumstances of a closed room, no kibs, no one around, how do we call the AC competent or incompetent?

 

 

What I'm reading in your post, Mike, is that we might as well go ahead and cheat because there never is proof enough to convict.  And that is just a defetist attitude, IMHO.

 

doofik

Good grief my post says just the opposite of what you seem to have read into it, oh well. Just more proof how one can take eyewitness reports or camera and one reads or sees the exact opposite. ;).

 

 

I never said eyewitness had a stake in the outcome or not.

I will repeat, good grief,

If we have a competent committee that is the best we can hope for and perhaps record the hearing if possible. Many seem to think camera will solve the issue, not sure how, since even if I hold up 3 fingers, tug at ear and wave at camera that is only evidence, many will say guilty evidence, some will say not enough, again all we can do is hope for competent committee to reach a reasonable conclusion.

[whereagles]

This has not been the first 'issue' with Buratti-Lanzarotti. They have been kicked out of the Lavazza team once (about 3 years ago, also for 'fingering' stuff). You can say they were on 'parole', but failed to 'regenerate'.. lol.

[nickf]

If someone is found guilty of cheating in any sport they should have all previous accomplishments stripped. So if B-L fail to clear themselves on appeal they should be stripped of the 2005 Cavendish along with any other pairs and teams successes they have had.

I don't agree with this notion. And I also can't think of any precedent in any sport where someone has all previous accomplishments stripped.

 

Other sports dont automatically ban particpants found guilty of cheating for life so why should the bridge administrations.

 

nickf

sydney

[Finch]

L&B have not been banned for life.

So far, all that has happened is that they were disqualified from the EBL teams & recommended not to enter the pairs.

[Walddk]

L&B have not been banned for life.

So far, all that has happened is that they were disqualified from the EBL teams & recommended not to enter the pairs.

Possibly academic, but as to the latter part of your post it's merely your interpretation of the Committee's decision. It reads:

 

Lanzarotti-Buratti to be disqualified from the teams event - Law 91B.

Match Score adjusted to 18-0 in favour of the team of East/West.

Matter to be referred to the Credentials' Committee with reference to the Pairs' event in these Championships.

 

http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05T...ns/28TuePg3.htm

 

.....

 

It's hardly a surprise that the pair did not attempt to enter the pairs event.

 

Roland

[Elianna]

I don't agree with this notion. And I also can't think of any precedent in any sport where someone has all previous accomplishments stripped.

 

Other sports dont automatically ban particpants found guilty of cheating for life so why should the bridge administrations.

 

nickf

sydney

I seem to recall eight white sox players being banned for life from baseball.

 

Of course, they were accused of purposely acting to their teams DETRIMENT (being bribed by because of gambling), instead of in attempt to win.

 

Pete Rose is not allowed in the hall of fame, nor are his records officially listed because he bet on his own team (to win, so he claims). Of course, this is still being debated, and might be overturned, who knows.

 

Anyway, just pointing out that people HAVE had their careers taken away because of cheating (but I believe it was admitted to in most of the above cases (and the debate is about severity of punishment)).

[hrothgar]

We shouldn't pass a judgement based on a word vs. a word, we need to fix the conditions of contest. Without any visual proof, it does become a witch hunt and since livelihood is at stake, putting cameras in the playing area becomes elementary. We can't destroy someone's professional career on another's say so. I'm not saying anyone was right or wrong, all I'm saying is that proof is so difficult and yet so easy to come by. Those cameras sure would solve all of our misgivings.

I strongly agree with Doofik that fixing the conditions of contest needs to be the key "take away" from this incident. As I noted earlier, I don't think that we will ever have enough information to know with certainty what happened at Tenerife, let alone what may have happened in previous events... However, I very much believe that this "issue" was forseeable and preventable. [Lord knows I've been harping about these issues for years] Accordingly, i beleive that the tournament organizers share a lot of blame for this incident.

 

I still believe that an electronic playing environment is a MUCH better solution than a system based on cameras. While I don't beleive that any such system would offer perfect security, I believe that such a structure is the best that we can do at this point in time.

 

If I ruled the bridge world, I'd implement something similar to the following:

 

1. All players are geographically co-located at the same physical site

2. During play, all players are segregated by direction (all North's in one room, south's in another)

3. All players are responsible for providing their own laptop computers. All laptops need to support the ability to boot from a CD-ROM. The "tournament" will run from a bootable image (This system makes it more difficult for players to modify the tournament software)

 

Please note - these suggestions are for major events like the Bermuda Bowl and other major championships. I seem no reason why such a system should trickle down to clubs or even regionals.

[Gerben42]

This is a terrible idea. Bridge is a card game and at-the-table psychology is part of it. You cannot just throw that out of the window.

Also you cannot expect everyone to have a laptop or be able to use one.

[hrothgar]

 

>This is a terrible idea.

>

>Bridge is a card game

 

 

Bridge is a game that has traditionally been played using "cards". However, please consider the core elements of the game: Neither bidding, nor declarer play, or even defense depends on a player's ability to manipulate little pieces of paste-board. Indeed. the dramatic success of BBO and OKBridge suggests that many players are perfectly happy to compete without the need for "cards".

 

>at-the-table psychology is part of it

 

As I noted in the past, the Laws and proprieties of Bridge deliberately attempt to exclude "At the Table" psychology. If you don't believe me, the deliberate "hitch" with a singleton and see what happens.... Equally significant, I think that the L+B incident does a pretty good job exposing the problems with "Table Feel" arguments.

 

>Also you cannot expect everyone to have a laptop or be able to use one.

 

True. But the players who compete in events like the Bermuda Bowl aren't "everyone". Given the total cost of participating in events like the recent TENERIFE affair, its very hard to claim that a laptop PC is going to break the bank.

 

I find it incredible that the WBF can insist that they want to promote Bridge as a spectator sport while simultaneously insisting on employing such a badly flawed playing environment. Electronic competition will improve VuGraph by an order of magnitude while simultaneously yielding dramatic improvements in security. I readily admit, some pros might not like playing the game using computers. I certainly would expect that B+L would have protested. However, its important to understand that pros (ANY pros) are ultimately replacable. Assume for the moment that Meckwell, Helgemo, and the Blue Team all quit the game of bridge. Someone out there would still be "the best". And the average fan would continue to be amazed and astonished by whoever assumed their mantel.

 

At the end of the day, its important to do whats best for the game, not what's best for any one individual's or any group of individual's revenue stream....

[mike777]

"At the end of the day, its important to do whats best for the game, not what's best for any one individual's or any group of individual's revenue stream.... "

 

This is an old debate in many ways and in many subjects outside of bridge as well.

For the ACBL is the number one priority the best interests of the game of bridge or the self-interests of its members? Many times this is the same, sometimes it is not.

For the WBF is the number one priority the best interests of the game of bridge or the self-interests of its membership? Again these can be in conflict at times.

 

Leadership takes a stance.

 

At the very least I hope Richard's leadership on this issue will create more discussion in regards to one issue, the importance in regards to fun, winning and legality of table feel in the game we all have so much passion for.

[hrothgar]

At the very least I hope Richard's leadership on this issue will create more discussion in regards to one issue, the importance in regards to fun, winning and legality of table feel in the game we all have so much passion for.

Sadly, my status as a "leader" is most closely approximately by that of Cassandra

[luke warm]

while it may be true that ways to cheat at the highest levels can be found, whether the play is 'live' or via computer, i'd still love to see all such events played electronically.. it's just my personal view

[mikeh]

A number of years ago, I was playing against Mike Lawrence and Grant Baze. I was not as focussed as I would like to think I usually am in such circumstances. At about trick 4 or 5, Lawrence led towards a KJx holding in dummy. I wsa on his left, with the Ace. I broke tempo by maybe a third of a second: the very slightest of twitches. Lawrence flew with the K. My partner asked him, at the end of the hand, why he did it (much to my chagrin since I well knew why) and Baze answered; "because your partner broke tempo".

 

Electronic bridge will destroy the ability to read such minute breaks in tempo. And that ability is definitely part of what bridge is about. Also, in every tournament mistakes happen. Even world class players revoke.... you cannot revoke in most forms of electornic bridge. If you programmed revokes into the game, you raise other issues for players with motor skill problems... I know several good players who have difficulty with fine motor skills. They would be at increased risk of revoking.

 

And a friend of mine, a ACBL Grand Master and multiple canadian internationlist once told me of a lead he made, during a major event. RHO had bid to 7♥ and he was on lead. he decided to lead away from Qxx♦. Dummy hit, displaying the 'other'♦Queen. Ooops: he had led away from Qxx of trump, into AKJxxxx... the only lead to allow the contract to make.

 

He would never make that mistake if the computer sorted his hand for him.

 

The game is one of skill, endurance, psychology and frailties. Electronic bridge is wonderful, but it is not the same game.

[hrothgar]

A number of years ago, I was playing against Mike Lawrence and Grant Baze. I was not as focussed as I would like to think I usually am in such circumstances. At about trick 4 or 5, Lawrence led towards a KJx holding in dummy. I was on his left, with the Ace. I broke tempo by maybe a third of a second: the very slightest of twitches. Lawrence flew with the K. My partner asked him, at the end of the hand, why he did it (much to my chagrin since I well knew why) and Baze answered; "because your partner broke tempo".

Lets assume somethng slightly different...

 

Exact same opponents, exact same "problem" at the table.

The only difference is that this time you are holding Qxx rather than Axx

 

You decide to deliberately "hitch".

Lawrence flys with the King losing to partner's Ace.

Your side has just taken two tricks in this suit and score a top...

Of course, you've also cheated...

 

Pros are able to exploit this "table feel" in part because they have banned players from adopting obvious counter measures like faking that they have a problem.

 

I don't see any reason why table feel deserves special protection. I feel that this is especially significant given that players accussed of cheating often use table feel as part of their defense.... Its all fine and well if players want to trust their instincts. All I ask is that players actually need to use their instincts.

[Winstonm]

A number of years ago, I was playing against Mike Lawrence and Grant Baze. I was not as focussed as I would like to think I usually am in such circumstances. At about trick 4 or 5, Lawrence led towards a KJx holding in dummy. I was on his left, with the Ace. I broke tempo by maybe a third of a second: the very slightest of twitches. Lawrence flew with the K. My partner asked him, at the end of the hand, why he did it (much to my chagrin since I well knew why) and Baze answered; "because your partner broke tempo".

Lets assume somethng slightly different...

 

Exact same opponents, exact same "problem" at the table.

The only difference is that this time you are holding Qxx rather than Axx

 

You decide to deliberately "hitch".

Lawrence flys with the King losing to partner's Ace.

Your side has just taken two tricks in this suit and score a top...

Of course, you've also cheated...

 

Pros are able to exploit this "table feel" in part because they have banned players from adopting obvious counter measures like faking that they have a problem.

 

I don't see any reason why table feel deserves special protection. I feel that this is especially significant given that players accussed of cheating often use table feel as part of their defense.... Its all fine and well if players want to trust their instincts. All I ask is that players actually need to use their instincts.

This is a valid point; I've also known players who use pace of play to try to rattle their opponents and get them to "hitch". Although not "cheating", surely trying to rush players through a hand is tantamount to "poor sportsmanship" at the least.

It would seem the only defense to this ruse would be to counter with a "false" hitch.

 

There are surely some wonderfully talented players in the world who would not think of bending the rules; but I come from the "bad old days" of bridge when it was common for at least some of the "touring" pros to go to the restroom between rounds and get "wires" on the hands, so I am not so naive as to believe that everything is as it seems just because someone has a world reputation.

 

I still believe the best way to handle these matters is to remove the screens and install clear tabletops with video cameras that can show all the foot movements, gestures, etc. It's not impossible to cheat under those circumstances but as my 10 years in Las Vegas casinos proves - it almost impossible to get away with it for long.

 

WinstonM

[MickyB]

This is a valid point; I've also known players who use pace of play to try to rattle their opponents and get them to "hitch". Although not "cheating", surely trying to rush players through a hand is tantamount to "poor sportsmanship" at the least.

I was surprised to be told by a director who I respect that rushing through the hand to try to gain from the opps tempo is against the laws of the game.

[bearmum]

This is a valid point; I've also known players who use pace of play to try to rattle their opponents and get them to "hitch".  Although not "cheating", surely trying to rush players through a hand is tantamount to "poor sportsmanship" at the least.

I was surprised to be told by a director who I respect that rushing through the hand to try to gain from the opps tempo is against the laws of the game.

AN ASIDE to the discussion re Tenerife but germaine to the above quote I think)

 

A few years ago I was playing in a Regional level teams event here in Australia and playing against a couple who (unknown to us) were well known for trying everything to put their opps off their game. After a bidding disaster (using bidding slips) on hand 1 (where due to bid out of turn they missed a COLD vul slam-- which our teammates bid) they were naturally upset, and in hand 4 asked my partner to "ask your partner to play in tempo or I will call the director!" My partner called "DIRECTOR PLEASE" and after discussion with him I was asked to endeavour to "play in tempo" , so I replied "OK I will count to 3 before making ANY bid or play" -- and did so (silently of course) for the rest of the hands -- which ended putting the opps off, and we won the match 25/0 VP.

Now it looks as though what I did is against the laws :P and I only did it because I as SO annoyed at the "cheating" accusation :blink: :o

[42]

This could be read in a German bridge forum, therefore I think I can post it here, too (and the last sentence of xxx posting also allows it, I hope):

 

[Nope it didn't - inquiry]

Edited July 8, 2005 by inquiry

[joker_gib]

The game is one of skill, endurance, psychology and frailties. Electronic bridge is wonderful, but it is not the same game.

I totally agree with you, Mike !

 

Being at a physical table and is important and is much more pleasant than playing in front of a computer !

 

Bridge has also a social part ! :o

 

 

Alain

[Finch]

another member of the lavazza team, ferraro, came to us and said

that they commited suicide and they didn't cheat up to that point in

this specific event but because they were having a bad tournament ,

they probably decided to put the "overdrive" on - whatever that

means.

 

Maybe there is a language issue here, because I believe neither ferraro nor the reporter have English as their first language.

 

But being able to tell you that they "didn't cheat up to that point in this specific event" - how on earth does he know? Do they discuss before each match whether to cheat or not? Does the team captain say either "OK guys, we need a good result, anything goes" or "please don't do anything odd, we can win without cheating"?

 

Saying "in this specific event" - does that mean he knows they cheated in many other events, but continued to play with them anyway?

[Walddk]

What strikes me as odd is that Guido Ferraro (his partner then was Dano De Falco) was reluctant to play in the Lavazza team in the 1st European Open Championships in Menton, France, in 2003 if Buratti-Lanzarotti were in the team too.

 

A large amount was involved, and even a Bermuda Bowl berth was at stake. Ferraro opted to play with Mario D'Avossa instead. Dano has always said "thanks, but no thanks".

 

Now, what made Ferraro change his mind before Tenerife I wonder.

 

Roland

[whereagles]

Now, what made Ferraro change his mind before Tenerife I wonder.

That I don't know, but I'd like to point out that this sort of change of mind is not at all uncommon in many instances of human activity. It happens a lot in politics, for instance.

[the hog]

"This is a valid point; I've also known players who use pace of play to try to rattle their opponents and get them to "hitch". Although not "cheating", surely trying to rush players through a hand is tantamount to "poor sportsmanship" at the least.

It would seem the only defense to this ruse would be to counter with a "false" hitch."

 

Totally disagree. Playing fast in an attempt to induce a mistake is perfectly legitimate.

[Walddk]

Totally disagree. Playing fast in an attempt to induce a mistake is perfectly legitimate.

No it's not.

 

LAW 73

 

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

 

2. Intentional Variations

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made.

 

Roland

[mike777]

Totally disagree. Playing fast in an attempt to induce a mistake is perfectly legitimate.

No it's not.

 

LAW 73

 

D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

 

2. Intentional Variations

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, through the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), or by the manner in which the call or play is made.

 

Roland

This law would seem to not pertain here.

Induce mistake does not have same definition as mislead opp.

Perhaps another section of laws do apply however.