What happened in Tenerife?

[Deanrover]

Anyone playing in a team with a pair who they know (or strongly suspect) to be cheating is an absolute disgrace.

[slx]

Anyone playing in a team with a pair who they know (or strongly suspect) to be cheating is an absolute disgrace.

agree 100 %.

maybe ferraro statements are influenced by the fact that he can only marginally reach the (very cash-giving :rolleyes: ) lavazza team...

 

like in the market when u have the chance to eliminate some of ur competitors... :)

[Finch]

"At this point Bareket told the TD what happened."

 

DID BARAKET CALLED THE TD AT THIS POINT ? IT APPEARS THAT BARAKET CALLED THE TD AFTER HE LOST THE MATCH 25-2 ?

No, all reports I think say it was immediately after the hand.

 

THAT'S REALLY SAD. AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. IF I LEAVE MY WIFE AND CHILDREN FOR 3 (?) WEEKS IN ORDER TO BE SLAUGHTERED 25-2 IT'S REALLY ANNOYING... NEXT TIME I WOULD STAY HOME AS WELL...

 

1 week to play in the Open only. 2 weeks to play in the mixed as well.

 

THAT´S AMAZING... DID REALLY BARAKET NOT KNOW WHO IS HE PLAYING AGAINST AND WHO B-L ARE ?!  I DONT THINK ANYONE IN TENERIFE DIDN´T

KNOW WHO TEAM LAVAZZA IS OR WHO B-L ARE ....

 

In common with many people who don't play much bridge internationally, I don't know what B&L look like. With the exception of Meckwell, I didn't recognise by sight anyone I played in Tenerife who wasn't English or Irish although obviously I knew a lot of the names. Perhaps Baraket was in a similar position.

 

Also, although Mme Lavazza is very well known, I wouldn't have known without checking who was playing on her team although I agree I would have expected them to be names.

 

Maybe their names were on their convention cards. Maybe not - not everybody names their cards. Also it seemed very common not to offer a convention card until it was needed, or not to have a convention card at all (really!).

[doofik]

To slx,

 

I don't know who you are but your ironic tone puts me off. I don't think that the B-L affair needs more fuel in the fire. Why, you don't even bother to spell the names right. Was there some purpose to it?

 

doofik

[cherdano]

I think this discussion would do better without all-caps.

[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.

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.

To induce a mistake, yes - but to induce an opp to give away the location of a card with his tempo?

[Winstonm]

"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.

To induce a mistake, yes - but to induce an opp to give away the location of a card with his tempo?

From the top of my head, I remember playing against three very agile minds: Marc Jacobus, Mark Lair, and Alan Sontag. All are capable of very rapid analysis and quick play - and all are TOP NOTCH in the ethics department, so I have no complaints there. But, when facing these guys, I know I must purposefully slow down my own tempo in order not to get caught up in their tempo. But then I have a problem as to "how" to slow down and "when" to slow down without giving UA, which means I'm having to think about a non-bridge problem instead of concentrating on the task at hand. The only successful method I found was to take a long time at trick 1 to try to analyze as much information as possible before playing, and again stop and rethink after winning a trick. But even then, I've had a "lesser star" accuse me of break in tempo when in third seat after the opening lead I took time to consider the entire hand instead of simply playing to the trick, I gave a discouraging signal, and partner continued the suit with a good and valid reason. (The director didn't buy declarer's claim of foul play, btw.)

 

If there are any other tortoises out there, how you handle these races with the hares would be appreciated information.

 

WinstonM

[cherdano]

Say, you have to follow with a singleton, but you want to take some time to think about the entire hand before playing. I think the recommended solution is to think, announcing that you are thinking about the entire hand, and then play.

What about playing your card face-down, thinking, and then turning it when you are ready? Would that be acceptable/normal/unnormal/lead to an immediate TD call?

 

Arend

[mikeh]

The lesser star could have avoided the problem had he followed the basic rule that declarer should never call a card from dummy without significant pause (unless the hand is a claimer). This habit works two ways. It ensures that declarer affords himself full opportunity to consider all possibilities and it minimizes the chance that RHO will be put in a difficult position.

 

Anyone who plays quickly from dummy at trick one has no-one else to blame if RHO tanks.

[DrTodd13]

So many posts! Here is one more....summary of some thoughts over the past 80 posts.

 

Sure, playing in front of a computer is not as nice as playing at a regular table but is it that much worse than playing with screens? There are numerous benefits to computers versus screens. When you have to alert, you could have an application with a set of saved alerts and you could send it with a click of the mouse. You could get around language problems by having your saved alerts translated into all appropriate languages and the application would see what language your opps understood best and would then send the alert in their language. For cases when you don't have a saved alert, you could even do something like send the alert to a real-live translator who was working at the tourney and he could translate and forward the text to the questioner.

 

Personally, I don't want this game to be about sorting cards and handling flimsy pieces of paper. I don't believe that physical card manipulation is part of the game and so I have no problem with engineering out the possibility of revokes.

 

There are times online where I've read an opponent's slight hesitation correctly to figure out what the best play was. If I can do this across the world over a crappy dial-up connection then reading hesitations over a high-speed network localized to a single hotel is not going to be a big problem. While I agree that this is a slightly different game from screens, I also believe that screens are a slightly different game from f2f bridge with no screens so why are people complaining about the next logical progression.

 

The "all the souths" in one room concept will solve a lot of problems but inventive cheaters will still be able to cheat. Even with proctors watching, you'll have to be sure they don't have something like a wireless device in their shoe. Maybe if you run them through a metal detector on their way into the room you could guarantee no extraneous communication.

[Fluffy]

I dunno who slx is, but he seems totally biased.

 

What is that thing of answering with CAPS? do you think you will have more reason for doing that?, please behave properly mate.

 

Everybody I talked to at Tenerife beleived Buratti knew the ♦ distribution (there were some funny jokes arising about it during next week), the problem is Buratti insulted the comitee by trying to induce them to think that the way he played was the best technical way to win the match. Had he just said opponent let him see his cards, probably there wouldn't had been that huge penalty.

[hrothgar]

The "all the souths" in one room concept will solve a lot of problems but inventive cheaters will still be able to cheat. Even with proctors watching, you'll have to be sure they don't have something like a wireless device in their shoe.

Todd is perfectly correct. Players could use some form of wireless device to circumvent all of the technical wizardry that I propose. Even so, I think that its worth considered a couple key points:

 

1. If players are forced to use electronic devices in order to achieve out-of-band signaling it becomes much easier to prove definitely whether people were cheating. There's no more need to relay on he said/she said. Seach the accused individual. I'd call the presence of a transmitter pretty damn conclusive.

 

2. An electronic playing environment permits perfect record keeping. In turn, those records permit some detailed statistical analysis... Even if we can't directly observe the signalling, it is possible to detect pairs who consistently make "lucky" leads or "inspired" defenses...

[inquiry]

I dunno who slx is, but he seems totally biased.

It seems most people have made up their minds, some that they had to be cheating, others that they couldn't be cheating, and still others, that they might have been cheating but there is no "proof."

 

In this way, each of these groups seem biased to me. But please, lets keep this discussion civil. We each have a right to our views.

[MickyB]

Say, you have to follow with a singleton, but you want to take some time to think about the entire hand before playing. I think the recommended solution is to think, announcing that you are thinking about the entire hand, and then play.

What about playing your card face-down, thinking, and then turning it when you are ready? Would that be acceptable/normal/unnormal/lead to an immediate TD call?

 

Arend

IMO your suggested method would be irritating and is unneccessary. At trick one, it is normal for 2nd+3rd hands to think for a while before playing, regardless of whether they need to think about which card to play to the first trick. Later on in the hand, you may as well play your card face-up and leave it there while you think. That way, partner and declarer can think while you do.

[doofik]

To slx,

 

The problem that I have with your posts is that they are cynical and, consequently, the message is lost, at least to me. Personal attack won't do you much good either.

 

doofik

[slx]

To slx,

 

The problem that I have with your posts is that they are cynical and, consequently, the message is lost, at least to me. Personal attack won't do you much good either.

 

doofik

I dont get this. what I try to say is that 2 people maybe - I repet: MAYBE - are accused and their bridgelife destroyed on a wrong assumption.

 

Who is cynical here doofik ? Me or U ?

I tried to get the REAL TRUTH of what really happened... and u call this cynical.

thank u. They hang 2 people on a doubtful ground and the one who wants to put light on the facts is CYNICAL... would u write the same thing if u would disclose ur identity ?

 

slx :) really sad....

[hrothgar]

To slx,

 

The problem that I have with your posts is that they are cynical and, consequently, the message is lost, at least to me.  Personal attack won't do you much good either. 

 

doofik

I dont get this. what I try to say is that 2 people maybe - I repet: MAYBE - are accused and their bridgelife destroyed on a wrong assumption.

 

Who is cynical here doofik ? Me or U ?

I tried to get the REAL TRUTH of what really happened... and u call this cynical.

thank u. They hang 2 people on a doubtful ground and the one who wants to put light on the facts is CYNICAL... would u write the same thing if u would disclose ur identity ?

 

slx :) really sad....

This isn't text messaging and you don't get charged by the letter...

If you drop drop the LEET speak, folks might pay more attention to the argument

[doofik]

Getting at the truth doesn't necessarily involve cynicism and shouting in capital letters. Capital letter don't get you any closer either.. I don't think that you can get at the truth unless you were there and were an eyewitness.

 

doofik

[slx]

Getting at the truth doesn't necessarily involve cynicism and shouting in capital letters. Capital letter don't get you any closer either.. I don't think that you can get at the truth unless you were there and were an eyewitness.

 

doofik

ok lets talk about capital letters. when have no more arguments u find always something to write about... ok dera doofik . no more capitals.

what about rsponding to the statements ?

u didnt answer to my staements - u complain about my capitals. u ´must be certainly a sensitive person ........ :)

 

i was no eyewitness and i was not there. were u there ?

[doofik]

"ok lets talk about capital letters. when have no more arguments u find always something to write about... ok dera doofik . no more capitals.

what about rsponding to the statements ?

u didnt answer to my staements - u complain about my capitals. u ´must be certainly a sensitive person ........

 

i was no eyewitness and i was not there. were u there ? "

 

 

The difference between you and me is that I'm not taking any position on the accusation nor on the decision of the committee. I'm not attacking nor am I defending because we've got sketchy details to say the least. Getting into a pissing contest is no fun because no one wins those.

 

doofik

 

P.S. In case you weren't aware of the nuance of capital letters, in computer-speak they're considered shouting.

[luis]

I dunno who slx is, but he seems totally biased.

It seems most people have made up their minds, some that they had to be cheating, others that they couldn't be cheating, and still others, that they might have been cheating but there is no "proof."

 

In this way, each of these groups seem biased to me. But please, lets keep this discussion civil. We each have a right to our views.

I have yet a different view.

I don't know if they were cheating or not but I think the comitee acted poorly. The facts and the decision don't match. If they were considering previous events they should have provided the information from those previous incidents.

[inquiry]

I have had to step in and delete some entire post.

 

If you guys want to get personal, take it somewhere else. It should be possible to express different views without attacking the person making those views.

[mike777]

I dunno who slx is, but he seems totally biased.

It seems most people have made up their minds, some that they had to be cheating, others that they couldn't be cheating, and still others, that they might have been cheating but there is no "proof."

 

In this way, each of these groups seem biased to me. But please, lets keep this discussion civil. We each have a right to our views.

I have yet a different view.

I don't know if they were cheating or not but I think the comitee acted poorly. The facts and the decision don't match. If they were considering previous events they should have provided the information from those previous incidents.

It seems obvious that only a tiny fraction of the full facts and evidence has been released to the public. This is a terrible shame.

Typical of some facts we are missing is "demeanor". My bet is we are missing many other pieces of evidence also.

The demeanor of the witnesses is very often a more important set of facts and evidence than what has been verbally communicated.

We all know from our old school days that communication is 7% verbal and 93% other. Where the heck are the other missing 93% communications?

It seems we have closer to 7% of the full facts than 100%, so far.

 

A crying shame.

[Erkson]

ok lets talk about capital letters. when have no more arguments u find always something to write about... ok dera doofik . no more capitals.

what about rsponding to the statements ?

u didnt answer to my staements - u complain about my capitals. u ´must be certainly a sensitive person ........ ;)

 

i was no eyewitness and i was not there. were u there ?

I am on you side, slx.

 

There was a couple of mistakes in your original post (it is a pity, and posters pointed rightly to them), but your general idea is right for me.

 

The judges may have more information than what has been published, but from the judicial point of view there is no valid proof in what has been published.

 

All informations the judges may have must be published.

 

I am stunned by the acceptance of the verdict on this forum.

 

I will add that, for me, if B&L don't bring the cause to a Court, it will be a confession of their cheating.

 

Erkson

 

PS : I agree with your use of lines in CAPITAL LETTERS. They make your long post looking clearer and prettier. They are not against Net etiquette.

[Erkson]

To slx, whoever you may be. Your response to the posting from the Israeli tem member does neither you nor the game any credit. The majority of the 'points' you make are either absurd or unfair.

mikeh, whoever you are, that is a very offensive way to reply to a post.

 

For me, slx would be right to demand apologies.

 

Erkson