What happened in Tenerife?

[Winstonm]

Perhaps the time has arrived to videotape important matches. 

 

The cost should not be prohibitive and no longer would we have to rely on "he said, she said" type testimony.  Evidence of this sort would also reduce, I'm sure, the future costs of the lawsuits stemming from the allegations/decisions.

 

WinstonM

I see in today's ACBL Bulletin that live camera feeds with the images recorded for review are now being used in the top events. No further details were given.

 

 

Gee, if I were only King. :P

[Finch]

They were also strongly discouraged from the EBL to play for Spain on that European bridge championship, but they were paid to, and they finished 2nd. WBF didn't let them play Bermuda Bowl.

On what basis? The WBF can't just say "we don't want you to play in the Bermuda Bowl". In fact, I'd have thought that it was for the EBL to pick its teams to represent Europe at the BB, and once they've allowed them to play in the European Championship, that's the end of it.

[mike777]

Perhaps the time has arrived to videotape important matches. 

 

The cost should not be prohibitive and no longer would we have to rely on "he said, she said" type testimony.  Evidence of this sort would also reduce, I'm sure, the future costs of the lawsuits stemming from the allegations/decisions.

 

WinstonM

I see in today's ACBL Bulletin that live camera feeds with the images recorded for review are now being used in the top events. No further details were given.

 

 

Gee, if I were only King. :)

I am willing to bet your conclusions are incorrect.

Camera images can lie.

Camera images can be interpreted many different ways.

I think this will reduce nothing and only increase the confusion.

 

With all that said making you King may be the better solution.

[Winstonm]

Perhaps the time has arrived to videotape important matches. 

 

The cost should not be prohibitive and no longer would we have to rely on "he said, she said" type testimony.  Evidence of this sort would also reduce, I'm sure, the future costs of the lawsuits stemming from the allegations/decisions.

 

WinstonM

I see in today's ACBL Bulletin that live camera feeds with the images recorded for review are now being used in the top events. No further details were given.

 

 

Gee, if I were only King. ;)

I am willing to bet your conclusions are incorrect.

Camera images can lie.

Camera images can be interpreted many different ways.

I think this will reduce nothing and only increase the confusion.

 

With all that said making you King may be the better solution.

You are so right. I worked in Las Vegas for years and was involved in trying to catch a cheating dealer - it took over a year to finally get conclusive proof on camera of what he was doing.

 

However, in an instance like this one, it would still be better to have graphic representation of what happened so the viewer could judge for himself instead of relying on verbal description.

 

Winston

[roghog]

I know this is an over-simplication, but there seem to be two sorts of experts these days. Some know (and rely on) the odds. Others are more intuitive. Although broadly aware of some of the odds, the latter let themselves be guided by mysterious factors like 'feel' and 'table presence'. (Have you ever asked Zia about the precise odds on a position?)

 

The intuitive cardplayers aren't usually much represented in threads like this one, or indeed on Appeals Committees. But such a player, declaring this sort of hand, might get a 'tell' from the questions and demeanour of his screenmate. And would certainly have the courage to 'play his hunch'.

 

So here's a nightmare waiting to happen. An intuitive player takes some anti-odds views that happen to work. A paranoid opponent gets suspicious, imagines the odd cough or gesture is something sinister, and jumps to a completely wrong conclusion.

 

I'm not defending B&L, but I am worried about the precedent that has been set.

[1eyedjack]

A so-called intuitive player who is consistently successful in top level events will normally be able to provide a cogent reason, albeit perhaps not one that he can easily quantify mathematically, for actions taken. Even the strict number-crunchers at the top of the game will acknowledge that these factors affect the odds. I do not believe that there is a significant difference between the plays made (at top level) between those with a reputation for "intuitive" play and those with a reputation for "analytical" play.

[McBruce]

No such precedent has been. The 'flair' player would simply say to the Committee that table presence made him play the way he did.

 

Buratti tried to make this type of claim to the Committee by saying the questions led him to believe that the opening leader lacked the Q♦, a claim which has drawn some criticism online. But under normal ciurcumstances the Committee might have believed him, had this been the only defense he put up. But when he followed this up with "diamonds are always breaking badly at this tournament" and Lanzarotti pulled a Raphael Palmeiro: "I did NOT look at his cards...okay, maybe I tilted my head a little but I'm blind in that eye....uh....at least to red suit honours," well, let's just say that the Committee was not comprised of people who were born yesterday...

[EricK]

No such precedent has been. The 'flair' player would simply say to the Committee that table presence made him play the way he did.

If the flair player could not articulate exactly what made him play like that then I would still be suspicious. Just saying "table presence" can not be enough.

 

For one thing, if you do not know exactly what the clues were that lead you to your conclusion then it may be the case that you were picking up clues from your partner, which is unethical.

 

Eric

[Erkson]

No such precedent has been.  The 'flair' player would simply say to the Committee that table presence made him play the way he did.

 

Buratti tried to make this type of claim to the Committee by saying the questions led him to believe that the opening leader lacked the Q♦, a claim which has drawn some criticism online.  But under normal ciurcumstances the Committee might have believed him, had this been the only defense he put up.

 

I agree.

 

But when he followed this up with "diamonds are always breaking badly at this tournament" and Lanzarotti pulled a Raphael Palmeiro: "I did NOT look at his cards...okay, maybe I tilted my head a little but I'm blind in that eye....uh....at least to red suit honours," well, let's just say that the Committee was not comprised of people who were born yesterday...

 

When I read that I think that I am in a nightmare, or in an Inquisition trial (which is the same).

The assertion about the diamonds break can be a joke, or a natural provocative reaction of someone very irritated by what he judges a silly accusation.

 

The second reply can be sincere and mean : "yes I tilted my head -and my accusator may have had the impression that I wanted to see his cards- but my movement was only natural. Furthermore and incidently I couldn't have seen anything because of a problem in my eye. "

 

I imagine so easily that kind of situation that I can't imagine that somebody doesn't realize that there is a possibility for it.

 

well, let's just say that the Committee was not comprised of people who were born yesterday...

 

That's the terrible cherry on that bitter cake.

 

Erkson

[guggie]

Apparently BL have been under growing suspicion. The ACBL had been collecting evidence and is organizing a hearing - aside from the Tenerife incident.

In my view they have been very careful.

 

Can somebody suggest a better procedure to handle these suspicions? (Yes, I have read, camera's could provide some extra evidence)

[McBruce]

But when he followed this up with "diamonds are always breaking badly at this tournament" and Lanzarotti pulled a Raphael Palmeiro: "I did NOT look at his cards...okay, maybe I tilted my head a little but I'm blind in that eye....uh....at least to red suit honours," well, let's just say that the Committee was not comprised of people who were born yesterday...

 

When I read that I think that I am in a nightmare, or in an Inquisition trial (which is the same).

The assertion about the diamonds break can be a joke, or a natural provocative reaction of someone very irritated by what he judges a silly accusation.

 

Please stop whacking the Committee for a job done well.

 

People who are accused of cheating in a Committee should know better than to joke or to react angrily to testimony, because this is not going to help their cause. I prefer to believe that this very experienced Committee made sure that no such thing happened, that in their report they cited reasons given by Buratti that they understood were meant seriously, and that they ensured (as all Committees are supposed to) that decorum and order was kept, and none of the people giving evidence were allowed to react provocatively to any statements made by the other side.

 

To assume otherwise is to accuse the Committee of bias and incompetence. If that were the case, don't you think we'd have heard some sort of protest from the Italian gentlemen by now?

[Erkson]

Please stop whacking the Committee for a job done well.

I don't care about the Committee. They had suspicions and they did what they thought was right. I have no information to judge if they were right or wrong.

 

My point is that it is not possible to say at the present time that L&B cheated.

And the argument : the Committee took that decision, SO they are cheaters, is insufficient for me.

 

People who are accused of cheating in a Committee should know better than to joke or to react angrily to testimony, because this is not going to help their cause.  I prefer to believe that this very experienced Committee made sure that no such thing happened, that in their report they cited reasons given by Buratti that they understood were meant seriously, and that they ensured (as all Committees are supposed to) that decorum and order was kept, and none of the people giving evidence were allowed to react provocatively to any statements made by the other side.

I am not an easy believer.

And the "magister dixit" has been having less and less effect on me as I were getting older.

 

To assume otherwise is to accuse the Committee of bias and incompetence.  If that were the case, don't you think we'd have heard some sort of protest from the Italian gentlemen by now?

The silence of L&B is amazing also for me. It requires a lot of cool blood, especially for Italians.

I suppose that it is tactical and they are working their defence for the hearing in November. I expect more noise then.

 

Erkson

[McBruce]

I think our opinions are closer than it seems. I too am uncomfortable with calling them habitual cheaters, because the only evidence is the grapevine. But in the Tenerife case, I agree with the Committee's decision to DQ them, which doesn't use the word cheating, but convicts them of passing signals and acting on them. Cheating pretty strongly implies prearranged methods. It seems possible that the importance of the match and the situation made Lanzarotti decide to cook up a way to let Buratti know the vital information needed: that Bareket had three trumps to an honour. After the A♥ lead it would be clear to Lanzarotti that this was the crucial information needed. But there is no evidence to suggest that the signalling method was prearranged; if anything, it feels like it was ad libbed.

[Walddk]

But there is no evidence to suggest that the signalling method was prearranged

If not prearranged, why would Buratti have paid attention to the 3 fingers? Purely coincidental?

 

Roland

[coyot]

But there is no evidence to suggest that the signalling method was prearranged

If not prearranged, why would Buratti have paid attention to the 3 fingers? Purely coincidental?

 

Roland

Since three fingers are VERY odd, you could use such a signal and hope it catches partner's attention.

 

Once he notices it, he does not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out what it is about!

 

Yes, if the count to be passed is four or five, this is much harder. So I would be inclined to believe that this signal was passed and acted upon - and it's oddity seems to make it possible that it was not prearranged.

[Robert]

Hello everyone

 

You might want to read Bridge World Dec. 2005 issue starting with page 3

for the other side of this discussion

 

Hello Inquiry

 

There are at least two Americans not liking the Reese Shapiro case treatment.

 

I have often suggested that I would be happy to defend them using the hands records. I have read several books about this case(from both sides) I also have read many of Reese's books.

 

The hands do not suggest that they were cheating 'if' you know their bidding style.

Several hands exist that knowledge of the heart holding would have saved the Reese Shapiro pair from a bad result.

 

Regards,

Robert

[doofik]

You might wish to take a look at today's (nov 23rd) NABC bulletin. On page 6 there's "Oversight Committee" and the expulsion of said players from ACBL.

[Robert]

Hello Everyone

 

When does it go to court or will just the threat of a law suit get them reinstated?

 

Bridge World August 2005 page 67, "When I was younger, I used to touch my hair while thinking, without being aware of it. One day, the Director called us at the end of the match and asked us to follow him in a room. There was a big table with about ten persons around and two available seats for my sister and me. One of the committee members informed us that there had been complaints about us, focusing on my nervous habit, 'What does it mean when you touch your hair?'

Fortunately, this man had a nervous habit of his own-a constant winking of the eyes. 'And you,' I replied, 'Can you tell me what you mean exactly when winking like that while looking at me?' There was a short silence , and then the man said:

'Okay, thank you; you can go.'

 

Benedicte Cronier was telling about the time when she and her sister were playing in the European Junior Championship when she was 19.

 

I keep my cards out of sight of the other pair. If someone holds there cards so that I might see them, I turn my head away and ask them to hold back their cards.

 

If it goes to trial, an American jury must decide beyond a reasonable degree of doubt that they are guilty. Will twelve Americans all decide beyond a reasonable degree of doubt that they are guilty?

 

I do not know all the facts, however, the defense lawyers should have a field day with a reasonable doubt defense. The judge will likely throw out the anti percentage play 'evidence' after hearing that trailing team experts do that every day of the week.

 

I would of course not get angry or upset if I was taken before a committee and accused of being a cheat. I wouldn't even mention a possible lawsuit.

 

Will anyone making an anti percentage play 'that wins' be branded a cheat?

 

Regards,

Robert

[mike777]

It is unclear an American Jury would have to find them guilty of anything to ban them. One can be Banned for many reasons, guilt being the least reason.

 

One can be banned from many things, your job, marriage, etc, and not be guilty of anything.

[Robert]

Hello everyone

 

I was not worried about whether they could be disciplined. Whether or not a court will approve the ban is quite another matter.

 

I have been banned from playing with one player a number of times. He keeps coming back and asking me to play. How do I convince him to 'ban' me from playing with him forever?

 

Any lawyers around to explain whether this might be libel or slander?

 

I seem to recall that 'just' the threat of a lawsuit has returned several players back into the ACBL.

 

If someone decides to sue over this matter, the ACBL will have to go to trial and win. If the ACBL lost, it might have to pay something in a seven figure settlement would be my guess.

 

Would twelve 'normal' Americans think that bridge players were all crazy to even consider going to trial over a card game?

 

Reasonable doubt might be a really hard sell to a jury of non bridge players.

 

If even one person has reasonable doubts, the ACBL could lose a huge amount of money.

 

American lawyers seem to ask for millions of dollars for some really interesting cases. The courts sometimes cooperate by giving away those millions. And so the circle continues going round and round.

 

Regards,

Robert

[Gerben42]

Why are such huge settlements paid in the US anyway? To an outsider the system looks completely out of control. And aren't their like higher courts without jury where someone qualified can decide?

 

Besides I doubt they could be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

[hrothgar]

There is ample use of arbitration within the US legal system. Many contracts require that disputes be handed through the use of expert arbitration rather than civil lawsuits.

 

As to enormous settlements that you occasionally see: From my perspective, these are a necessary part of the system. Firms seek to maximize profits. Placing bounds on the size of legal settlements create incentives for firms to break the law and then pay a small settlement if/when they are successfully sued.

 

The current congress clearly demonstrates that we can trust a kleptocracy to control those with the bulk of the wealth. Something else is needed.

[pbleighton]

"Besides I doubt they could be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt."

 

The "reasonable doubt" test only applies in criminal cases. Most civil cases use preponderance of evidence, which is basically 51% likelihood. Being banned from bridge (or the appeal of it, more likely) would be a civil matter.

 

I agree strongly with Richard's post.

 

Peter

[ArcLight]

>I seem to recall that 'just' the threat of a lawsuit has returned several players back into the ACBL.

 

It worked for Tonya Harding!

 

 

>If someone decides to sue over this matter, the ACBL will have to go to trial and win. If the ACBL lost, it might have to pay something in a seven figure settlement would be my guess.

 

The people suing (the plaintiff) would have to PROVE their case in a CIVIL trial, not a CRIMINAL trial. The burden of proof would be on the plaintiffs not the defendent (ACBL).

 

However, I don't think the ACBL would be happy having to pay for lawyers to defend themselves. So a rich person/company can bully another person/company through the threat of legal action.

 

 

>Would twelve 'normal' Americans think that bridge players were all crazy to even consider going to trial over a card game?

 

I think Civil juries have 6 members, but I could be mistaken. A criminal case would have 12 members.

 

 

Its very hard to catch cheaters if they are subtle, and also very hard to punish them. Thats a shame as it seems that there is little downside to cheating in most cases.

 

 

Reese was also suspected at cheating at rubber bridge games for money.

 

 

>I have been banned from playing with one player a number of times.

 

Why is that? Is that something to be proud of? That other players/officials suspect you and this other player of cheating? Personally I would hate to be thought of as dishonest.

 

 

After reading Alan Truscotts book I have my doubt about the integrity of the famous Italian Blue team. I dont doubt their skill, but I do suspect that some cheating took place at high level events. And not just them, others have done so.

 

I don't think enough is done to punish (at least discourage) cheaters when there is real evidence, not just talk.

 

Hows this: Video tape them. Let their opponents review the film to see if they detect any irregularities.

[geller]

Starting with the Denver Nationals, the ACBL has announced a policy of videotaping National events (the old "eye in the sky").

http://web2.acbl.org/nabcbulletins/2005fal...prebulletin.pdf

 

This should provide objective evidence for resolving future accusations of inappropriate conduct (in at least some cases).