AbeBooks https://www.abebooks.co.uk › Italia... The Italian Blue Team Bridge Book by Benito Garozzo And Pietro Forquet

[H Potter]

Hi, does anyone happen to know of anywhere I can source a copy of this book in the UK. Many thanks in advance. Nigel.

[Douglas43]

AFAIK it is out of print but I have an old paperback that I could post when I get back from my holiday in a week of so. I think that some of the hands were improved by the authors, according to research by a guy called Avon Wilsmore who has written a book about the blue team. Message me if you want the book. Paul

[PrecisionL]

bookfinder4U.com

 

AardBooks $40 USD

ThriftBooksVintage $49 USD

I personally like THE BLUE CLUB better. :) 1969, 1975 Garozzo, Yallouze & Reese (Adapted)

[Douglas43]

That is right if you want the bidding system. The btbb is a collection of hands

[pescetom]

I am lucky to have a 1967 paperback version of "Il Fiori Blue Team" by Pietro Forquet and Benito Garozzi, with a hand written introduction by Forquet.

Obviously in Italian and I am not parting with it.

[mycroft]

A small warning that Avon W. - shall we say, has a bit of a bias against the Blue Team? It would not at all surprise me if the hands were doctored to "improve" the results (more likely to increase the possibility that "normal" bidding would land in the wrong contract); but I would read his statements with his bias in mind.

 

It would also not surprise me if his statements against the Blue Team are more often accurate than not, or if his conclusions had serious merit. So don't just ignore him, either.

[avonw]

A small warning that Avon W. - shall we say, has a bit of a bias against the Blue Team? It would not at all surprise me if the hands were doctored to "improve" the results (more likely to increase the possibility that "normal" bidding would land in the wrong contract); but I would read his statements with his bias in mind.

 

It would also not surprise me if his statements against the Blue Team are more often accurate than not, or if his conclusions had serious merit. So don't just ignore him, either.

 

Avon Wilsmore is not understanding this. I have no complaint about either of the two main Blue Team Club system books (Forquet & Garozzo, Garozzo & Yallouze)

 

It is, however, fact that Forquet plagiarised at least one deal in Bridge With The Blue Team, and fabricated the auction and play on another. Details here:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bridge-without-the-blue-team/

 

In the Introduction, Forquet writes:

All the hands used arose in actual competition and are faithfully and accurately reported.

 

He had no business writing that.

 

As for my "bias"... here some samples of Blue Team activity:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-talk-that-never-was-the-blue-team-rule/

 

Eric Kokish:

...not until now has the full extent of the Blue Team’s collusive cheating been catalogued and revealed. Wilsmore’s book is the product of vast amounts of scholarly research, cross-referencing, and verification. As you read through the deals you will be horrified by the extent of what happened without official challenge or responsible investigation, and you will be in no doubt that the author’s conclusions are accurate.

[nullve]

From the Blue Club thread:

 

Here is an example of Blue Team divergence from stated methods, at "just the right time".

 

http://neapolitanclub.altervista.org has an article, “The Neapolitan Club: Outline.”

We see two elements of the system:

 

...With 17+ the opening is 1C...

 

1S-1NT; 3D — Strong jump: four spades and five or more diamonds.

 

 

So how to account for Forquet’s actions on this hand?

 

1958 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 78. Neither vul.

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sa3haq75dkq652ck7&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1hp1sp2dp2sppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Forquet did not open a systemic 1C; he did not then rebid a systemic 3D.

And after Siniscalco’s 2S... Forquet passed.

 

Siniscalco had a queen and two jacks. +140

Maybe the auction really went

 

1C-1D

1H-1S

2D-2S

P

 

?

You left the thread at this point.

 

Before I buy your book I need to know if you really believe that they chose to not have the normal Blue Club auction

 

1♣-1♦

1♥-1♠

2♦-2♠

P

 

on this deal.

 

I'm sure you know that bidding is not always recorded accurately on Vugraph here on BBO. But maybe vugraph operators were much better back then?

[mycroft]

I have a bias against Kyle Rittenhouse. I think you can guess what it is. I think you should read my comments (if there are any) about his luck with getting speaking gigs or other jobs in the last couple of years with that bias in mind.

 

I think a majority of the world, especially that part of the world personally affected by Kyle Rittenhouse, would agree that my ideas are correct. Are they? Again, probably (but "I would say that, wouldn't I?") No matter what, though, one should read anything I say that is any way related to that person or that time with those biases in mind.

 

You have had a bee in your bonnet about something that happened over 50 years ago for at least a decade. Very likely for very good reason, and I absolutely respect people doing the hard work of investigating the truth of a matter. But you started with a conclusion, and the evidence you put forward all seems to match that conclusion. That means at least one of two things:

 

1. You present facts that support your conclusion like a good debater would;

2. Your conclusion is true.

 

Is it both? Very likely - you do good work! Is it necessarily both?

 

EOK, someone I personally greatly admire, and who is (indirectly, but in at least three independent situations) responsible for much of whatever skill I have in this game, also has a very obvious bias in this matter - and a very obvious reason to want your conclusion to be true. Should I be surprised that he is willing to blurb your book and publicly state that he is convinced by its arguments (assuming they are sound and strong enough to be reasonable, which I am sure they are, having read your work)? Should I take that blurb strictly on its face, or should I read that with a knowledge of the bias of the writer, too?

 

You have done an amazing amount of work for bridge. It is not work I would do, nor is it work I consider as "necessary for bridge in 2023", but I have my biases as well, and I know that what I think is important, or needing to have value outside of itself, is not and should not be impediments for doing a labour of love. Do I believe your conclusion? Yeah, probably, at least the broad flow. I definitely believe that the way this was handled by the FIGB and the WBF at the time (and the lack of shame required, given said history, to do what the FIGB did last year with a straight face), was and is disgraceful, even if all we assume is true are the facts admitted by all. Does that mean that I would take anything you write, however tangentially related to this matter, as unalloyed, unvarnished, unbiased truth? Or that anyone else should not be made aware of where you stand?

[avonw]

I am puzzled by this constant charge of bias.

 

But you started with a conclusion...

 

That is false. There was a time when I was a solid Blue Team devotee, and anyone who asserted they were up to "stuff" would have heard quite a bit from me. But, having studied every relevant WC Handbook, and done many hundreds of internet searches, I changed my mind.

 

Anders Wirgren also changed his mind.

 

For many, many years I thought... that the Italians won because they were superior and the Americans protested just because they didn’t win. I don’t think so anymore.

 

Half a year ago I got a preview on a coming book, written by Avon Wilsmore from Australia. It is called Under the Table with the subtitle The Case Against the Blue Team. It was scary reading.

 

The author’s thesis is that when Carl’Alberto Perroux put together the Blue Team in the mid 1950’s, it was expected for the pairs to “help each other”... All serious authors and writers know that there is no shortcut to the truth. You have to go to the sources. So after reading Under the Table that is what I did. I went through all my old world championship books, downloaded PDF versions of the books I missed and read it all over – with new eyes...

 

After reading many, many old world championship deals, I agree with the author. My own view is that neither Avarelli, Chiaradia, D’Alelio or Pabis-Ticci were good enough to be on an ordinary open Swedish national team – if they played bridge. They needed a partner who “helped them”. Otherwise, they were simply too weak...

 

So I have filled my car with fallen heroes, driven to the city dump and thrown the Italian players at the same place where already convicted cheats are lying.

 

It's fact that I have received many emails from world-class players regarding the BT. 100% of them agree the BT cheated. Many of them thank me for making such a cast-iron case. For copious instances of chicanery, I again refer you to this article:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-talk-that-never-was-the-blue-team-rule/

 

In the comments, you will see an account of at-the-table BT cheating, by Mike Passell. My book has an account of at-the-table BT cheating, by Mike Lawrence.

 

Before I buy your book I need to know if you really believe that they chose to not have the normal Blue Club auction.

 

You are missing the point. One deal is of little interest. What my book contains are many, many instances of bizarre bids that just happen to match partner's hand. Others have observed this.

 

Anders Wirgren:

I am convinced that the Blue Team players signaled their strength in a similar way, because their timing was always perfect: they overbid when partner had extra values, but underbid when he had nothing. Always. It is impossible to have such accuracy, unless you know something you shouldn’t.

 

Indeed, I have an entire chapter where I review all hands where a Roman Club player had a 5-3-3-2 shape and opened the bidding during the 1958 Bermuda Bowl Final. Hand after hand, Avarelli and Belladona violated their system... luckily, partner had just the right stuff every time.

 

Again, others have observed this.

 

Danny Kleinman:

In my book “Bridge in the Tower of Babel” I examined their {Avarelli and Belladonna’s} use of {the Roman} system {at the 1966 Bermuda Bowl}, writing a long chapter I called “Bid with the Romans.” Their bidding deviated from their system so often that I concluded they were either terrible bidders or basing their calls on something other than their hands and their supposed partnership methods. That chapter contains some 77 bidding problems of which the pair got only 8 right, but you need not take my word for it, as you can check the deals and my analyses of them for yourself. You might also ask yourself, “Can conclusive evidence of cheating be obtained from studying hand records alone in conjunction with knowledge of partnership agreements?” You might be surprised.

 

I am startled to read fact-free material like this:

 

EOK, someone I personally greatly admire, and who is (indirectly, but in at least three independent situations) responsible for much of whatever skill I have in this game, also has a very obvious bias in this matter - and a very obvious reason to want your conclusion to be true. Should I be surprised that he is willing to blurb your book and publicly state that he is convinced by its arguments (assuming they are sound and strong enough to be reasonable, which I am sure they are, having read your work)? Should I take that blurb strictly on its face, or should I read that with a knowledge of the bias of the writer, too?

 

What, exactly, are you able to provide as evidence of my bias?

 

Bart Bramley:

This is the most thorough deal-by-deal examination ever done.

[nullve]

Before I buy your book I need to know if you really believe that they chose to not have the normal Blue Club auction.

 

You are missing the point. One deal is of little interest.

Would many deals like that be of great interest? If so, how do you think the auction really went?

[mycroft]

1. You know that I and nullve are two different people, right?

2. I am surprised that you were a blue team devotee. Because I have never seen you post anything that isn't full on the "blue team were cheaters", or at least "blue team players did something that a whole bunch of bridge writers did, and I'm going to complain about it because it's them (and they said something that stretched the truth a bit)." <- and the implication intended to be passed is "since they stretched the truth here, they probably did it where it actually mattered, too."

3. But whatever you *were*, you have been on a decade long tirade to (with what I'm sure you believe is very good reason, and with from what I can read very good reasoning) besmirch the Blue Team. So much so that your national federation said "no, we don't think we need to bring this up again and give you a national stage to present it" - so you took it to another, even bigger, stage.

 

Mike Passell and Mike Lawrence - well, they would have much better records if they hadn't had to play the Blue Team all those times. Do I trust them? Of course. But do they have a vested interest in the Blue Team's reputation being lowered? To use a historically appropriate phrase, "you bet your sweet bippy."

Other American pros of the next age - well, I refer you to my previous comment.

Anders Wirgren - well done. You are a very persuasive writer.

 

Do I think you are wrong? Well, apart from "if you're right about *everybody*, why are Garozzo and Belladonna so welcomed and celebrated at ACBL Nationals now?" - no. I'm quite certain there was nefarious action afoot, and almost certainly more than has been made public. I am very certain that the FIGB and probably people in the WBF colluded to sweep a bunch of this under the rug, for whatever reasons (and again, more than has been made public).

 

But when "I think that some of the hands were improved by the authors, according to research by a guy called Avon Wilsmore who has written a book about the blue team" is mentioned, I think it behooves players interested in said book to know what they're getting from "that guy". Which is *all* that I said. Given that it looks like what that guy said about that book specifically was the first link that you gave me, it looks like you also think people should look at what "that guy" said before they make up their mind. Note that I did not say "you shouldn't believe him" or even "he's wrong". I even implied that it's more than likely "he's right". Just "take a look at what he talks about before making up your mind".

[avonw]

More inaccuracies. Your rewrite of history is downright silly.

 

...you have been on a decade long tirade to... besmirch the Blue Team.

 

A Google search of "Blue Team" "Avon Wilsmore" from 01 Jan 2000 to 01 Dec 2017 finds nothing of note. The first published articles of mine about the Blue Team's "untoward activities" were in Bridge Winners, Dec 2017. In any event, my actions were never driven by a desire to "besmirch", but a wish to uncover the truth. More non-North Americans:

 

Sam Lev:

Wilsmore’s book is well-written and well-researched, with fascinating details of historical tournaments and events. There are many amazing hands that you will not see anywhere else. The conclusions are very clear and I recommend this exciting book highly.

 

David Gold:

When I first began studying bridge, I marvelled at the brilliance of the Blue Team; in particular, how their bidding and use of ‘Italian doubles’ was so effective and so far ahead of the game. Avon Wilsmore has put a great deal of work into a fascinating and compelling book that finally tells the world what it should have been told, many years ago.

 

So much so that your national federation said "no, we don't think we need to bring this up again and give you a national stage to present it" - so you took it to another, even bigger, stage.

 

Rubbish. My application to give a talk at the Feb 2018 Gold Coast Congress about my forthcoming book was declined because of President Rona's presence. There was no "bring this up again"; you made that up.

 

Because I have never seen you post anything that isn't full on the "blue team were cheaters", or at least "blue team players did something that a whole bunch of bridge writers did, and I'm going to complain about it because it's them (and they said something that stretched the truth a bit)." <- and the implication intended to be passed is "since they stretched the truth here, they probably did it where it actually mattered, too."

 

I am unable to understand the section in bold.

 

why are Garozzo and Belladonna so welcomed and celebrated at ACBL Nationals now?"

 

Belladonna died 28 years ago. It's been a while since he was welcomed anywhere. In any event, it's fact that there were real-world consequences for both Forquet and Garozzo as a consequence of my book's findings. I regret I am not currently able to elaborate; I believe I will be able to be more open about this later in the year.

 

We certainly agree that there were nefarious actions by the WBF and FIB/FIGB. My book has many chapters on this. The Burgay Tape was a particularly-egregious such event. Where are the findings? Was the Tape a true account of Blue Team cheating methods, or was it not?

 

FWIW, here is what FIB President Firpo said, regarding the Burgay Tape:

 

Should the inquiry determine that the tape was authentic and furthermore that the declaration by Bianchi of his cheating with Forquet was confirmed, then the Italian Bridge Federation would renounce all European and World titles won with either Bianchi or Forquet on the team.

 

My (possibly excessively-optimistic) aim is to achieve such a renunciation.

[nullve]

The Talk That Never Was: The Blue Team Rule[/i], p. 8']

1966 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 21

 

[hv=pc=n&nn=Belladonna&n=sa6hakt963dkcaq63&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p?]133|200[/hv]

The Roman Club books are quite fussy about hand evaluation, using point-count and Losing-Trick Count. Roman Club is a hard-line canape system; with a 3-1-2-7 good opening bid, 1♠ is forced. It follows hands with a long major and secondary clubs are a problem; these are handled by opening two-of-a-major. This is defined as 12-16 HCP and 5-6 losers, five+ of the major and four+ clubs.

 

With a stronger single-suiter, but less than a game-force, one can open the long suit and then jump in it. That is the systemic treatment for the hand above.

 

But Belladonna opened with 2♥, underbidding by at least an ace and a trump.

 

Avarelli had garbage - a useless jack.

 

Was this luck?

 

Not in my opinion, because Avarelli and Belladonna were following the Blue Team Rule.

(Hand diagram reconstructed by me.)

 

So here we are to believe that Belladonna and partner bid

 

2♥-P

 

and not e.g.

 

1♣(1)-1♦(2)

2♣(3)-2♦(4)

2♥(5)-P

 

(1) a) 12-16 BAL b) 17-20, 4+C5+other, not 3-suited c) 21+, any

(2) ART negative

(3) b)

(4) relay

(5) 5+ H [so like a Roman 2♥ opener, only stronger]

 

?

[avonw]

(Hand diagram reconstructed by me.)

 

So here we are to believe that Belladonna and partner bid

 

2♥-P

 

and not e.g.

 

1♣(1)-1♦(2)

2♣(3)-2♦(4)

2♥(5)-P

 

(1) a) 12-16 BAL b) 17-20, 4+C5+other, not 3-suited c) 21+, any

(2) ART negative

(3) b)

(4) relay

(5) 5+ H [so like a Roman 2♥ opener, only stronger]

 

?

 

 

I discussed that board with Bob Hamman. He was at the other table. It really is time to stop the fantasy games and face facts.

[nullve]

With a stronger single-suiter, but less than a game-force, one can open the long suit and then jump in it. That is the systemic treatment or the hand above.

Are you sure about that?

[avonw]

Are you sure about that?

 

For every Roman Club auction, I checked with Avarelli & Belladonna's 1959 and 1969 books, "The Roman Club System of Distributional Bidding". Having gone over every auction I could find, I agree with Danny Kleinman.

 

In my book “Bridge in the Tower of Babel” I examined their {Avarelli and Belladonna’s} use of {the Roman} system, writing a long chapter I called “Bid with the Romans.” Their bidding deviated from their system so often that I concluded they were either terrible bidders or basing their calls on something other than their hands and their supposed partnership methods. That chapter contains some 77 bidding problems of which the pair got only 8 right, but you need not take my word for it, as you can check the deals and my analyses of them for yourself. You might also ask yourself, “Can conclusive evidence of cheating be obtained from studying hand records alone in conjunction with knowledge of partnership agreements?” You might be surprised.

 

Anders Wirgren also went over every Blue Team deal in WCs.

 

...their timing was always perfect: they overbid when partner had extra values, but underbid when he had nothing. Always.

It is impossible to have such accuracy, unless you know something you shouldn’t.

 

My opinion is, it's better to not obsess about one deal, one should look at the big picture. What you will see is an enormous number of gross overbids, underbids and systemic violations. It is a fact that Avarelli-Belladonna did not play Roman Club at all.

 

Both A-B and Forquet-Garozzo put in writing that they played normal takeout doubles; length and values in the unbid suits. The entire Blue Team played nothing of the sort, until the screens went up.

 

There is a brief look at these matters in the "Talk That Never Was" article, and many pages in the book. Time and time again, we see the monstrous give-away... a nutty action is a fine match for partner's holding.

 

This is a double of 1D for Siniscalco at unfavourable:

Qxx Q AJ10xxx Axxx and Forquet has enough for game.

 

This is a not a double of 1S for Siniscalco at nil vul:

xx KQJx AJxx Qxx and Forquet has rubbish.

 

This is a nil vul 1S overcall for Garozzo:

KJ10x Ax 10xxx xxx and Forquet has support and a minimun opening bid.

 

This is not a 1S overcall for Garozzo at favourable:

QJ10xx Axxx Ax xx and Forquet has one spade and rubbish.

 

This is a pass of Garozzo's 1S overcall at nil vul for Forquet:

Q9x Qxxxx AKx 10x and Garozzo had four spades and a dog. (And when the bidding came around to Forquet again, he STILL wouldn't raise!)

 

This is a raise of Garozzo's 1S overcall at favourable for Forquet:

Q109 Jxx Kx Q10xxx and Garozzo had five spades and a minimum opening bid.

 

This pattern goes on hand after hand, match after match, year after year.

[avonw]

Mycroft, above, mentions a serious matter - official policy. I discuss Italian policy here.

 

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bridge-in-italy-is-different/

[mycroft]

Fine, my memory is bad. It's only been 6 years; it's felt like a decade. Fine, my knowledge of the current status of the Blue Team is bad. That's because - and stop me if you've heard this before - some people's concern about a scandal older than they are might not be as large as yours. I have my own biases, and one of them is that bridge might be a lot better if we stopped picking at scabs, especially scabs that we know won't change anything even if we open up the old wounds again.

 

And yes, I guessed at why the ABF didn't want you bringing up all this ancient history on a national stage (I note, all you said was "Permission denied", so - how would I know?) Turns out instead, that one of the people that - just possibly - had their own biases about the matter was there, and the ABF decided they'd rather insult you than embarrass him - and in turn, be themselves embarrassed. Sounds like "everyone has their biases, and we should pay attention to them when making our decision." to me.

 

Oddly enough, just today while running my club game, I ran across an article posted at

, by Mario Rossi. I've cut quite a bit from it, and I'm sure that pescetom could do a better job of my loose translation. But:

 

A couple of issues have been brought to our attention regarding deals in "Bridge with the Blue Team", by Pietro Forquet and Benito Garozzo. On page 150, the following deal is presented:

[deal and explanation omitted]

but it seems that memory makes fools of us all. It seems that this is what was reported by Signor Forquet at the time:

[explanation omitted]

Over many tellings of the story, it seems that "this hand was boring in 3NT, and was difficult in 4♥, but Giorgio pointed out a brilliant line to make 5♣" became "Giorgio played a brilliant line to make 5♣". It is unfortunate that Sr. Forquet didn't bother to check his memory against the record when writing the book, but we've all had hands that grew in the telling.

 

And another hand, a few pages earlier, seems to put out a similar lesson as found by the great Hungarian (who played for the US against Forquet) Ivan Erdos, in his book "Bridge a la Carte". You can see the resemblance here:

[deals, play, and comparison omitted]

 

Of course, it is up to you to decide for yourself how much was two discussions of the same point, versus taking uncredited someone else's construction and elaborating on it.

 

It is unfortunate that faulty memory and a wish to present an interesting wrinkle have been allowed by Sr. Forquet to be presented as factual hands that were played at the table in the manner described. It is especially surprising that he strongly desired to make clear in his introduction that "All the hands used arose in actual competition and are faithfully and accurately reported." It is a stain on an otherwise excellent book, and a reminder that while he is not the first to inflate his successes and appropriate hands others have reported as his own, we would hope that proper reviews are now done, and appropriate credit willingly given, in new books meant to teach this great game.

 

So, why the difference between two presentations of the same facts? Could it be that one was written by someone who is writing "the most thorough deal-by-deal examination ever done" about what he is becoming convinced (and wishes to convince others) was the highest-profile cheating team in bridge history, and the other by a 10-year member of the board of the FIGB and occasional partner of Forquet?

 

And that is all that I am saying - in fact, all that I have ever said[*]. The quote was "I think that some of the hands were improved by the authors, according to research by a guy called Avon Wilsmore who has written a book about the blue team." My implied response: "When you read the results of said research, know that it was written by someone who is convinced that these guys cheated for the better part of 10 years, and has written a book and several articles detailing his evidence. As a result he is likely to put a more culpable spin on said 'improvement'."

 

I am not saying that I have evidence of bias in your book. I couldn't and wouldn't - I haven't read it (for why, see para. 1). I am not saying I think your conclusions are wrong. I'm saying that your book is evidence of your bias, when it comes to how you would present Forquet's "improvement" of hands. Which, as I implied in that part you "couldn't understand", is something that bridge writers have been doing since bridge was born, and if it no longer happens in published books (which I don't believe for a minute, even with so many more eyes and so much more automation looking for it) it sure hell happens at every post-mortem at every bar next to the playing site of every tournament. I'm sure I've even done it myself - pretty certain I've never stolen someone else's story, though. The only thing more "grown in the telling" than a fisherman's story is "one time, against Hamman-Lev..." But it might be presented, in this specific case, by this specific reviewer, as the Mark of Cain.

 

[*] Okay, I have also said that compliments on how well you have confirmed their suspicions, from players who have a great deal of reputation to gain by having their suspicions confirmed, may not have quite the effect of similar compliments by those not so intimately involved.

 

I gave enough clues. I take no responsibility. I don't even feel guilty about it.

 

[nullve]

For every Roman Club auction, I checked with Avarelli & Belladonna's 1959 and 1969 books, "The Roman Club System of Distributional Bidding".

 

[...]

 

My opinion is, it's better to not obsess about one deal, one should look at the big picture. What you will see is an enormous number of gross overbids, underbids and systemic violations. It is a fact that Avarelli-Belladonna did not play Roman Club at all.

 

Both A-B and Forquet-Garozzo put in writing that they played normal takeout doubles; length and values in the unbid suits. The entire Blue Team played nothing of the sort, until the screens went up.

But bidding systems evolve, and in one version of Roman Club it seems like 1♣ (followed by 2♣ and 2♥) was the correct opening with this type of hand. (You can check these notes on Dan Neill's webpage.) So if that was the version they were supposed to play, then they would gain absolutely nothing by opening 2♥ on that deal.

 

The Talk That Never Was: The Blue Team Rule[/i], p. 7']

With a large pile of books in front of me, I had to decide where and how to start. Well, the Blue Team's frequent use of off-shape "Italianate" takeout doubles was well-known, and they have been adopted by precisely zero top-class pairs in the last 60 years. Maybe that was a good place to start. And indeed, we see some weird and wonderful things. Here are some early boards.

 

Hand 1.

 

1957 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 22.

 

♠ K 4 ♥ K 2 ♦ K J 9 7 3 ♣ K 9 4 2

 

Avarelli doubled 1♣ for takeout.

 

Hand 2.

 

1958 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 35.

 

♠ Q 9 2 ♥ Q ♦ A J 10 7 4 3 ♣ A 9 8

 

Siniscalco doubled 1♦ for takeout

 

Hand 3.

 

1962 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 122.

 

♠ Q 10 6 ♥ 10 ♦ A K 10 5 4 ♣ Q J 9 5

 

Belladonna doubled 1♠ for takeout.

 

The hands above, and thirteen more, are listed at the start of my "Takeout Doubles" chapter. No expert has ever chosen to double with any of the hands, while a Blue Team player doubled with all of them. The Blue Team averaged more than +3 imps/board over those 16 hands.

 

Would you like to play this style of takeout double at the one-level? Well, I know pairs who, during the Blue Team era, tried this method. They didn't try it for very long - they found it to be disastrous.

 

Would you be worried, after making a one-level double with the hands above, about being penalised in a silly fit? Blue Team players were not. It never happened*.

But exclusion advances to doubles (see e.g. deal 50 in

) were also part of Roman Club at some point, which partly explains how they could get away with doubling on hands like this. (It's the exclusion advance, not the double, that shows tolerance for unbid suits.) Why don't you mention exclusion advances in your article? Or do you?

[avonw]

Fine, my memory is bad. It's only been 6 years; it's felt like a decade. Fine, my knowledge of the current status of the Blue Team is bad. That's because - and stop me if you've heard this before - some people's concern about a scandal older than they are might not be as large as yours. I have my own biases, and one of them is that bridge might be a lot better if we stopped picking at scabs, especially scabs that we know won't change anything even if we open up the old wounds again.

 

And yes, I guessed at why the ABF didn't want you bringing up all this ancient history on a national stage (I note, all you said was "Permission denied", so - how would I know?) Turns out instead, that one of the people that - just possibly - had their own biases about the matter was there, and the ABF decided they'd rather insult you than embarrass him - and in turn, be themselves embarrassed. Sounds like "everyone has their biases, and we should pay attention to them when making our decision." to me.

 

Oddly enough, just today while running my club game, I ran across an article posted at

, by Mario Rossi. I've cut quite a bit from it, and I'm sure that pescetom could do a better job of my loose translation. But:

 

 

 

So, why the difference between two presentations of the same facts? Could it be that one was written by someone who is writing "the most thorough deal-by-deal examination ever done" about what he is becoming convinced (and wishes to convince others) was the highest-profile cheating team in bridge history, and the other by a 10-year member of the board of the FIGB and occasional partner of Forquet?

 

And that is all that I am saying - in fact, all that I have ever said[*]. The quote was "I think that some of the hands were improved by the authors, according to research by a guy called Avon Wilsmore who has written a book about the blue team." My implied response: "When you read the results of said research, know that it was written by someone who is convinced that these guys cheated for the better part of 10 years, and has written a book and several articles detailing his evidence. As a result he is likely to put a more culpable spin on said 'improvement'."

 

I am not saying that I have evidence of bias in your book. I couldn't and wouldn't - I haven't read it (for why, see para. 1). I am not saying I think your conclusions are wrong. I'm saying that your book is evidence of your bias, when it comes to how you would present Forquet's "improvement" of hands. Which, as I implied in that part you "couldn't understand", is something that bridge writers have been doing since bridge was born, and if it no longer happens in published books (which I don't believe for a minute, even with so many more eyes and so much more automation looking for it) it sure hell happens at every post-mortem at every bar next to the playing site of every tournament. I'm sure I've even done it myself - pretty certain I've never stolen someone else's story, though. The only thing more "grown in the telling" than a fisherman's story is "one time, against Hamman-Lev..." But it might be presented, in this specific case, by this specific reviewer, as the Mark of Cain.

 

[*] Okay, I have also said that compliments on how well you have confirmed their suspicions, from players who have a great deal of reputation to gain by having their suspicions confirmed, may not have quite the effect of similar compliments by those not so intimately involved.

 

I gave enough clues. I take no responsibility. I don't even feel guilty about it.

 

 

 

Thank you for the link to the Italian text; unfortunately it does not work for me. I see that they mention Forquet's introductory text, All the hands used arose in actual competition and are faithfully and accurately reported."

 

I am sure we agree that to make such a statement when the truth is anything but, is a very grave matter indeed.

 

I am not the first to note Forquet's dishonesty.

 

The Bridge World, July 1983:

The deals are presented as if played by Forquet and his teammates while compiling their incredible record … (indeed, many of the deals were played by Blue Team stars)...

 

I wrote to Jeff Rubens, asking if he knew any of the deals that caused Kaplan to write this, but he did not.

 

BTW, when you are next at your club, give the Forquet's 5C deal "played by Belladonna" to a useful player there. He will likely outplay "Belladonna". Forquet's analysis is wrong.

 

Your text contains more errors:

 

... convinced that these guys cheated for the better part of 10 years.

 

From 1957 to 1983 is more than ten years.

 

...compliments on how well you have confirmed their suspicions, from players who have a great deal of reputation to gain by having their suspicions confirmed, may not have quite the effect of similar compliments by those not so intimately involved.

 

I have received very favourable magazine reviews all across Europe. The Chinese Bridge Federation paid for the translation into Mandarin and employed staff to double-check everything they could. Do you have any facts, rather than vague statements about "suspicions"?

 

Really, the case is closed, dead, over and out. Not one single top-class player has every suggested any doubt about my book's findings. Given that all you have are repetitive and unsubstantiated lines about bias in a book that you have not read, I shall be saying no more.

[avonw]

But bidding systems evolve, and in one version of Roman Club it seems like 1♣ (followed by 2♣ and 2♥) was the correct opening with this type of hand. (You can check these notes on Dan Neill's webpage.) So if that was the version they were supposed to play, then they would gain absolutely nothing by opening 2♥ on that deal.

 

 

But exclusion advances to doubles (see e.g. deal 50 in

) were also part of Roman Club at some point, which partly explains how they could get away with doubling on hands like this. (It's the exclusion advance, not the double, that shows tolerance for unbid suits.) Why don't you mention exclusion advances in your article? Or do you?

 

As for the Roman 2H opening (12-16) with an Acol Two, I have no interest in anything other that contemporaneous works by Avarelli and Belladonna.

Belladonna was "lucky" to find Avarelli with nothing but a useless jack; his call could have gained in many ways (primarily by the opponents misjudging).

 

I think you are spending too much time looking at trivial detail; the real deal is, the incredible extent to which wild and weird actions match partner's hand.

 

An example from the same year as GB's massive 2H underbid:

AQJxxx A AK10 Qxx. You are vul.

3H P P X

 

In a Bridge Winners poll, 100% either doubled or bid 4S. But Pabis-Ticci bid 3S. Again partner had a useless jack. +140.

Tell me, do you think that such underbidding is the way to win three consecutive Olympiads and ten consecutive Bermuda Bowls?

 

There is no specific mention of Roman exclusion advances in the article; they certainly get discussed in the book. P9 of the article discusses Roman's responsive-type doubles (1suit X new-suit X) which are closely related. 1966/45 really is quite something.

 

P12 looks at Neapolitan's Herbert Negative advance to a TOX. Take a look at the last hand; I have little doubt that that would have been one of the items that caused every member of the US team to sign a declaration stating that the BT players cheated. Kaplan (US coach, author of a 1957 book on Italian systems) arranged training sessions where the team played Roman and Neapolitan. All the players would have known what happened on that deal.

 

That the BT players had "help" when making takeout doubles can be seen in Chapter 17 of mu book, where I list every deal from 1957-1959 where a BT player doubled a W2.

 

Samples:

 

Forquet

Kxx Ax 109x AQxxx

2S P P X

 

Avarelli

x KJxx Axxx KQxx

2D X

 

Belladonna

10 KJx AQxx Kxxxx

P 2H X

 

Belladonna

AQxx 10xxx 10xxx A

P P P 2H

P P X

 

And there were no Exclusion Advances. What would you say to a partner who made these doubles?

 

Anyway, I have little more to add. These are available resources:

 

- Small sample of BT hands:

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-talk-that-never-was-the-blue-team-rule/

 

- My book, that covers the 1958 accusation, the 1963 Gerber Letter, the 1975 Facchini-Zucchelli scandal, the 1976 Burgay Tape, instances of official cover-ups and detailed review of hundreds of hands

 

- A list of Italian administrative actions and cover-ups:

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bridge-in-italy-is-different/

 

- A look at Avarelli

https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/another-look-at-walter-avarelli/

[mycroft]

1. As I said in the spoiler, I gave enough clues. (wonders. Did you actually click on the link? Did anybody else?)

2. Since you repeatedly wish to defend something I have never, and have no wish to, attack, rather than deal with my actual point, I agree that there is no further reason to talk past each other. Which is unfortunate, I think the point is actually interesting.

 

I (sincerely! your work is valuable and of great worth! just not to me!) wish you well in your continuing actions down that path. Especially if you can do something about changing the way the politics works in the governing bodies so that today's emulators of the less laudable side of the Blue Team's story get a different reaction in this century. Given how all the politicians stepped up to the plate in August 2021 - I'm less of an optimist even than you.

[nullve]

P12 looks at Neapolitan's Herbert Negative advance to a TOX. Take a look at the last hand; I have little doubt that that would have been one of the items that caused every member of the US team to sign a declaration stating that the BT players cheated. Kaplan (US coach, author of a 1957 book on Italian systems) arranged training sessions where the team played Roman and Neapolitan. All the players would have known what happened on that deal.

The Talk That Never Was: The Blue Team Rule[/i], p. 12']

Neapolitan used "Herbert Negatives", whereby the next step was a negative response. Edgar Kaplan gives this hand as a minimum 2♣ (not-negative) response after partner doubles 1♠: ♠ K x x ♥ x x x ♦ x x ♣ Q 10 x x x.

 

Here is the Herbert Negative in action:

 

1957 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 77.

 

[hv=pc=n&wn=Siniscalco&w=st74hq9642d92cj95&en=Forquet&e=skq86hkdaqj543ckt&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1cdp1dp1sppp]266|200[/hv]

It is as plain as could be that both players knew that the Herbert Negative was in use. Siniscalco bid the next step with a poor hand and a doubleton, and Forquet didn't "raise" with six diamonds,

 

From the chapter, "Partner Will Understand":

 

This auction is in accordance with the stated methods. However, there are some “issues” with using a Herbert Negative; it can make the auction awkward when the responder to the double actually has the next-step suit and some values. What if you have more than a negative but not enough to jump opposite an Italianate off-shape double? How to iron matters out? No problem, partner will understand. Consider this next deal:

 

1958 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 32

 

[hv=pc=n&wn=Siniscalco&w=sqj4h97653dat9c64&en=Forquet&e=s987haktd53cakj87&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1ddp1hp2hp3hp4hppp]266|200[/hv]

Here we see an illustration of much of what is wrong with off-shape doubles. First, note that, on board 35 of the same tournament, Siniscalco doubled an opening bid of 1♦ on his right with: ♠ Q 9 2 ♥ Q ♦ A J 10 7 4 3 ♣ A 9 8

 

Given that there is no guarantee of heart support, how should Siniscalco respond to Forquet’s double of 1♦, above? Siniscalco could not jump to 2♥; that could be a silly fit, so he chose 1♥. But wait, that’s a Herbert Negative, showing about 0-5, any shape! Bizarrely, Forquet clearly knew that it was a suit and values. How is that possible?

 

As noted on page three of this article, every member of the 1958 US team signed a declaration that the Blue Team cheated. Do you think this hand would have been one of the reasons why?

Are you sure Sinisicalco's 1♥ advance on board 32 (or D'Alelio's on board 40 (see

of the match)), was not a Chiaradia-style Herbert negative, described in this article by P. E. Garrisi?

 

Eugenio Chiaradia takes up the Herbert Negative again but sweetens it with a binder; it is usuable only if the suit to bid has at least three cards. Chiaradia's step reply is a modest improvement; the suit to bid may be the four card in a 7-8 point hand, a problem also for the Herbert, or else the hand is weak but the step has 0-2 cards, not biddable.

Edited February 9, 2023 by nullve

[PrecisionL]

I have been playing a Power Double (15+ hcp, usually balanced) with Herbert responses for several years and like our scheme.

 

If responder has a semi-positive (6-8 hcp) in the Herbert Negative suit (♦, or ♥, or ♠, he responds 1NT. This works well (usually).

 

Jumps are forcing (9+ hcp), usually Hxxxx suit, maybe HHxx.