Buratti Lanzarotti

[Willem]

We all know Andrea Buratti–Massimo Lanzarotti have been suspended during the European Championships, accused of illegal signalling. Does anyone knows what happened since? Was there an investigation? Did they appeal? Are they still on the Lavazza-team? I hardly can believe a top pair will use those methods, but if they did, they should be punished (I guess their sponsor will be the first to do so). If not, they should be back in international bridge soon.

[han]

Hi Willem,

 

Check out this link:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=8787

 

A long discussion of this topic, I don't think that people will want to do it again.

[Double !]

didn't someone report that they were both members of the acbl, will be having a hearing in November, and are temporarily suspended until that time?

[Willem]

Hi Willem,

 

Check out this link:

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=8787

 

A long discussion of this topic, I don't think that people will want to do it again.

Hannie,

 

I read the thread. It’s about the incident itself (and some other things). It’s not my intention to restart that discussion.

 

But I don’t believe this matter can just fade away. There should be a follow-up (further investigations by WBF or EBL, maybe hearings and appeals, etc.). I was just wondering if anyone knows about it. That’s why I wrote my post.

[Aberlour10]

didn't someone report that they were both members of the acbl, will be having a hearing in November, and are temporarily suspended until that time?

The ACBL Ethical Oversight Committee found the italian pair

guilty of violating Law 73...

 

 

http://web2.acbl.org/nabcbulletins/2005fall/db6.pdf

[nikos59]

Since the announcement is not exactly prominent in the

Bulletin, you have to go to page 6 and find it at the bottom right

hand corner.

 

Nikos

[Fluffy]

Buratti is living in Madrid nowadays (or so I heard) but he doesn't play bridge at all. He has written an article though in a local magazine, explaining his point of view of the incident, I didn't waste my time reading it so don't ask me what he said there.

[Walddk]

Law 73, B(2) to be specific.

 

B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners

 

1. Gratuitous Information

Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

 

2. Prearranged Communication

The gravest possible offense is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion.

 

.....

 

On Nov. 18, 2005, the American Contract

Bridge League Ethical Oversight Committee found

Mr. Andrea Buratti and Mr. Massimo Lanzarotti

guilty of violating Law 73 of the Laws of Duplicate

Contract Bridge for deliberately communicating

unauthorized information at the European Bridge

League Championship earlier this year.

 

As a result, the Committee expelled Mr. Buratti

and Mr. Lanzarotti from the American Contract

Bridge League effective immediately. Mr. Buratti

and/or Mr. Lanzarotti may appeal this decision to

the League’s Appeals and Charges Committee

within thirty (30) days.

[Walddk]

The interesting aspect is that B&L are not banned from playing in Europe although the incident took place there with the European Bridge League as the organizer. Kind of strange that the ACBL was the first organization to expel them (for good it seems), isn't it?

 

On the other hand, let me say this as clearly as possible: they are not welcome in my bridge club! I can't know for sure obviously, but I think this applies to most places in Europe.

 

Roland

[Fluffy]

On the other hand, let me say this as clearly as possible: they are not welcome in my bridge club! I can't know for sure obviously, but I think this applies to most places in Europe.

 

Roland

Probably right, but as we often say... Spain is different, I expect them to start playign again in less than 2 years aroudn here. Maybe not as partnership though.

 

I can remember when an old lady was catched cheating at the local club, someone found hsi scoring sheet, ,where she was supsoed to write down her results to check later, but she had written only boards that she had not played yet (with the scores sawn at the other tables).

 

She was expelled for 3 months. You might think she didn't find any partner when she was back. But what really happened was that she had a large queue of partners looking to play with her :)

[mikeh]

In North America, we have had a number of cheating scandals over the years. It has not been uncommon, at larger tournaments, to play a match against a player or players who had been expelled or forced to resign but who were then reinstated, sometimes as a result of a lawsuit. While I have felt uncomfortable playing against such players, what saddens me the most is that there are clients who want to win so much that they hire these players (I assume but do not know that is the motive) and other professional players who seem happy to play with them, as partners or teammates.

 

Having said that, I know of at least one player who was punished for cheating and who I believe felt genuine remorse.. but he was not a professional.

 

I feel, strongly, that professionals who are caught cheating should never be allowed to play professionally again. I am not sure how to enforce that :)

 

That is to say, having served their time, if they want to play for the enjoyment of the game, ok.. but never let them play for pay.. but unfortunately there will probably always be some one who would be tempted to pay them under the table anyway.

[Robert]

Hello everyone

 

There is a 'reply' from the other side in Bridge World Dec. 2005 issue starting on page 3.

 

Is it just me or does eveyone else hold their cards so that another pair can see their hand?

 

Bridge World recently had a story about accusations of cheating from one of the pairs in Challenge the Champ.

 

The lady sometimes touched her hair while playing bridge and she was accused of cheating. She was taken before a committee and asked to explain the touching

of her hair while playing bridge.

 

As luck would have it that the gentleman asking her the question had a minor eye blinking condition. Her response was to ask the man, "What is the meaning of your eye blinking while questioning me." She was allowed to leave without any further comment.

 

I once placed my hand down on the table to 'fish' something out of my pants pocket. There were 'raised' eyebrows that I was signaling a weak raise to partner when I bid 1M-2M. The opening lead was made and I put down a very fine dummy.

 

I do play 'upside down' signals, however, my bids convey my meaning. Not any emphasis on bidding, not by folding up my cards and putting them on the table, not by voice infection and also not by the speed of my bidding.

 

I have seen all of these methods in use for several decades. I do play to win, but, cheating to win is just cheating yourself.

 

Regards,

Robert

[Fluffy]

I heard a rumour today that the president of the AEB (spanish NBO), found nothing in the rulements that let him ban either Buratti nor Lanzarotti. So if they decided to play the only thing they'll need is to pay spanish license. Also a more neboulous rumour said Buratti is gonna play the spanish open pairs championship this weekend. I'll tell you if that happens.

[mike777]

I heard a rumour today that the president of the AEB (spanish NBO), found nothing in the rulements that let him ban either Buratti nor Lanzarotti. So if they decided to play the only thing they'll need is to pay spanish license. Also a more neboulous rumour said Buratti is gonna play the spanish open pairs championship this weekend. I'll tell you if that happens.

I think this shows the thinking in many bridge countries.

1) You may be guilty is one issue

2) You may cheat is another issue

3) Banning someone is still another issue.

4) It seems in Spain the president makes the banning decision and not a seperate committee? Or does the president think he/she has powers that he/she do not have?

5) Note in the USA the president of bridge or an American Jury do not have the power to ban!

[Robert]

Hello mike777

 

Several players have been restored to ACBL membership when their lawyer suggested that a law suit might follow unless the ACBL relented.

 

Perhaps a lawyer(on this forum) might post 'if' this case would involve a charge of libel or slander.

 

Unless the ACBL could prove beyond a reasonable degree of doubt that the pair in question was guilty as charged, very large sums of money would change ownership.

 

Round up twelve Americans off of the streets of the U.S.A. and you really believe that not one person in twelve would not have some reasonable doubt?

 

Will the ACBL gamble a very large chunk of money that their case is 'highly unlikely' to lose?

 

Unless there is some additional supporting 'hard' evidence to support these charges, I would guess that the ACBL will restore membership to two gentlemen in the not too distant future.

 

Regards,

Robert

[mike777]

Hello mike777

 

Several players have been restored to ACBL membership when their lawyer suggested that a law suit might follow unless the ACBL relented.

 

Perhaps a lawyer(on this forum) might post 'if' this case would involve a charge of libel or slander.

 

Unless the ACBL could prove beyond a reasonable degree of doubt that the pair in question was guilty as charged, very large sums of money would change ownership. 

 

Round up twelve Americans off of the streets of the U.S.A. and you really believe that not one person in twelve would not have some reasonable doubt?

 

Will the ACBL gamble a very large chunk of money that their case is 'highly unlikely' to lose? 

 

Unless there is some additional supporting 'hard' evidence to support these charges, I would guess that the ACBL will restore membership to two gentlemen in the not too distant future.

 

Regards,

Robert

1) keep in mind in these cases Insurance pays the legal fees

2) Insurance pays the settlement not ACBL

3) Not sure why you think one out of 12 matters...most of the time you need 10 or so out of 12 to win..not one out of 12 in civil matters.

4) In any case even if you lose the Ban is still a ban...you just lose money ...not the Ban!

5) At some point you need to decide, ban the players and maybe lose insurance money or just let cheating spread, members choice.

[Robert]

Hello mike777

 

Are you sure that the ACBL has insurance to cover this?

 

I was under the impression that several players were restored to ACBL membership because they either started or just threatened legal action.

 

Why wouldn't the ACBL fight those cases 'if' they had insurance to cover any loses?

 

I do not see banning someone and later 'not defending' your actions in court 'if' no money changes hands from ACBL sources.

 

I do not know anything about civil law.

 

Uniform Code of Military Justice maybe a little bit?

 

I had assumed that the burden of proof was on the ACBL.

 

You can ban me for cheating 'without' sufficent proof and a civil court will not rule against the my accusers? Boy ain't American justice just grand?

 

I would prefer that the ACBL defend any reasonable action to the bitter end. Why the ACBL wouldn't follow that policy is way past my understanding 'if' they had insurance to cover any monetary losses?

 

Regards,

Robert

[geller]

In the case of B-L the ACBL (according to the Daily Bulletin) is basing its action on the adjudication made at Tenerife. Presumably B-L have the opportunity to appeal on the basis that the Tenerife descision was unjust, but in that case the burden of proof would be on them to demonstrate this. Otherwise the ACBL is probably justified in accepting the verdict of another federation or tourney sponsor.

 

In previous cases, (ike the Houston Trials (in 1977?), there was apparently a deal, namely that the accused pair would resign from the ACBL rather than be expelled by a disciplinary hearing, in return for silence on the part of the ACBL. Some of the ACBL officials apparently then shot their mouths off in public about the alleged offenses, thereby violating the terms of the deal. Thus the litigation was not about whether or not cheating had occurred, but rather about whether the ACBL was in breach of its contractual obligation to shut up. This put the ACBL in a weakened position, so it's not unreasonable that the ACBL's insurance company insisted on a settlement.

 

In the case of the Blue Team, all I know is what I've read, but there is a famous case (see old Bridge Worlds, or John Swanon's book, "Inside the Bermuda Bowl") where Pabis-Ticci (in the 1968 Olympiad?) was on lead against an auction like 1S-2S-4S with Axxxx Axxx in the minors and he led the ace of the shorter suit, which happened to be his pard's singleton. (There were no screens back then.) It's hard to conceive of a logical reason for this. Maybe he just got randomly lucky.....

 

Incidentally, I have no first-hand knowledge of any of the above incidents; what I've written is simply based on stuff I've read over the years.

[Chamaco]

In the case of the Blue Team, all I know is what I've read, but there is a famous case (see old Bridge Worlds, or John Swanon's book, "Inside the Bermuda Bowl") where Pabis-Ticci (in the 1968 Olympiad?) was on lead against an auction like 1S-2S-4S with Axxxx  Axxx in the minors and he led the ace of the shorter suit, which happened to be his pard's singleton.   (There were no screens back then.)   It's hard to conceive of a logical reason for this.  Maybe he just got randomly lucky.....

 

EDIT:

I am somewhat sorry for the overheated tone of the following post, but I think that -while it is indeed extremely important to speak out and harshly against cheating- it's equally important to speak out loud, with the same energy, towards UNPROVEN accusations of cheating, or sneaking insinuations of cheating, especially "documented" with a one-sided version.

 

 

========

 

This way of accusing/non-accusing is very very sneaky and unfair on behalf of Swanson in my opinion, exactly because it suggests yet again, to the modern players, that Italy stole the BB Bowls.

I am really outraged.

 

 

1) I think that if one looks carefully through the record of high level tournaments over, say 10 years of BB finals, quite a few weird plays can be found.

 

In opening leads, a quick look at books about famous opening leads will show how weird can some opening leads be, and the reasoning behind them often sounds quite esoteric: if one does not understand the reasoning, or simply the intuition, it's easy to claim that the opening leader "cheated".

 

BTW, if it's Swanson (or Truscott) that looks for such material, he'll look only for examples where it is the italians who did that, he'll never show weird US leads.

 

As they say, "If you really want to find something, you'll find something even when it's not there".

this is especially true for inferential reasoning.

 

 

2) Because the italians were accused by the US players of cheating, the organization decided to install at the tables inspectors that should verify the possible encrypted signals of the italians; this went on for a LONG time, and they were unable to find any unusual signal that might suggest signalling/cheating;

I am referring to the BB finals in the 60s.

 

 

3) bringing up, yet again, this accusations after 40 years, listing only the episodes about ialy, and reporting the events in a partial way, without hosting the version of the counterpart, is, in my opinion, bad, bad, bad behaviour.

 

From my perspective, in the specific circumstances, these books tend to convince me that the authors are bad losers rather than the italians cheated.

[Fluffy]

Fully agree with Mauro. The blue team had nothing to do with these 2 guys. In fact many top Italian players are against B-L for several plays. Never heard of a single italian saying a word against Blue team.

[ArcLight]

>I would prefer that the ACBL defend any reasonable action to the bitter end.

 

You might, but it might not be worth it financially for the ACBL. Perhaps if you were to cover their expenses they would be happy to do so. I suggest you contact them.

 

> I do not know anything about civil law.

 

Then why are you making posts as if you did? On the other folder you thought this would be a criminal trial rather than civil.

 

 

>Uniform Code of Military Justice maybe a little bit?

 

Sorry, the ACBL is not part of the US military.

 

 

>I was under the impression that several players were restored to ACBL membership because they either started or just threatened legal action.

 

Lawyers are expensive. I wonder if the ACBL membership would be happy to see their dues going to pay them.

 

Also, it would be far more difficult to convince a non-brige intermediate (level player, or better) that a pair cheated. What would you expect of a jury?

 

1) learn the rules of bridge

2) learn bidding

3) learn declarer play

4) learn defender play & signaling

5) bring in a bunch of experts to explain why leading away from Aces on the first card is generally very poor play? The defense would just have to get some hack "expert" ( who has scraped up 300 master points over 40 years and is a life master) to testify that underleading aces on occasiopn is good, because it fools the opponents. Etc.

 

The downside for the ACBL is a big pay out. The upside is integrity. But why take a 10% chance of losing a lot of money if they lose, and in any case have to pay a lot of money for a trial?

 

I don't know what the laws are on non-profit non-religious organizations suspending/expelling members. But the ACBL probably does have access to lawyers, and felt the potential loss was too great.

 

In the USA if you can sue who ever you want. You may not win, but you can force the defendent to spend money defending themselves. If you are a lawyer, you don't even need to hire anyone, just do the work yourself. Why take any risks? The ACBL may have a 95% case, but not want to pay for the lawyers.

 

 

> BTW, if it's Swanson (or Truscott) that looks for such material, he'll look only for examples where it is the italians who did that, he'll never show weird US leads.

 

Prove it. How do you know they are biased only in favor of Americans, or against only the Italians? Theoretically Swanson (or Truscotts estate) could sue you for libel, for this comment, though I think he'd have a hard time collecting. In Truscotts book he lists a number of suspected cheats, and they are not all Italian.

 

>2) Because the italians were accused by the US players of cheating, the organization decided to install at the tables inspectors that should verify the possible encrypted signals of the italians; this went on for a LONG time, and they were unable to find any unusual signal that might suggest signalling/cheating;

 

What about the foot stepping incident? Was that in Argentina? I don't remember the pair. Bobby Hamman mentioned it in his book "At the Table". It was also in Truscotts book.

[Robert]

Hello geller

 

I think that I read the Italian side of that lead of an Ace from the shorter minor.

I do not recall the details, however, nothing seems strange about the explanation at the time.

 

The Blue Team was famous for finding killing leads over the years. Even my humble attempts at finding the killing lead sometimes happens to work. :P

 

If I happen to find the source, I will post the details. I believe that the explanation includes the idea that he needed to find his partner with a singleton to have a chance of defeating the contract. I sometimes defend based on that kind of logic.

 

Hello ArcLight

 

I never suggested covering the ACBL expenses, if you want to do so, please send a certified check to the ACBL HQs. When did I ever suggest any possible gift of money to the ACBL? I have paid dues in the past, but no multi million dollar gifts.

 

Where did I say that I was well versed in civil law? My last post stated that, "I

do not know anything about civil law." How did you read any other possible meaning into that sentence? :)

 

I just suggested that it would/might go to court 'or be settled out of court.

I repeat for your benefit, "I do not know anything about civil law."

 

Sorry, I served three years in the U.S. Army. The UMCJ covered my years in the army. Where did I suggest that the ACBL was part of the military?

 

Why not let the ACBL decide ACBL matters? If they have any doubts, they can poll the members for their reaction.

 

Mike777 posted that the ACBL has insurance to cover any legal expenses. Why not consult him if you have any doubts about insurance payments?

 

You want to teach bridge to 12 jurers? :) LOL

 

Falling down and rolling on the floor. :) LOL

 

Thanks for the good laugh. :) LOL

 

At first, I guessed that you might be serious. :)

 

Very funny. I had to just get a drink of water, I was laughing so hard. :)

 

I know hundreds of bridge players that have played for decades and still cannot bid or play at a decent level. :) Some of them are life masters. :)

 

You want experts to explain world class bridge bididng and card play to 12 people,

 

who just had some beginning bridge lessons. :) LOL

 

Mike777 posted that the ACBL has insurance to cover any payouts. Please consult with him over the details. I raised the posiblity that the ACBL might not have the insurance. Please reread my posts asking Mike777 'if' he was sure that the ACBL had insurance to cover all payouts.

 

Even if the ACBL has insurance, if they lose this case, their insurance premiums might soar out of sight.

 

I answered a question about what I believe that the ACBL should do. Please consult the person that raised the question if you did not like my reply. They started that issue, I merely responded with my 'opinion.'

 

Since when does the ACBL listen to me?

 

I also want the ACBL to allow forcing pass and other HUM systems into play. They have not as yet changed to agree with my "opinion." :)

 

Are you aware that underleading Aces is not all that rare? I read about one hand in top level play where two tables made the same opening lead of underleading an Ace in the exact same suit.

 

When conditions indicate underleading an Ace, it is normal to do so. If the other pair at my table bid 1H-3H-4C-4D-5H-p-p-p I would feel that underleading my Ace of spades would be right.

 

I bellieve that you are supposed to underlead your Ace in these conditions, because partner might hold Kx and this will allow him to win the first trick, return the suit to your Ace and perhaps 'trump' the third round of the suit.

 

If you do not underlead your Ace, the suit is blocked and no third round ruff is possible.

 

When dummy has shown a strong balanced hand, it is often right to underlead an Ace at trick one. Most good players will know this an defend accordingly. After they win the first trick with their Queen behind dummy's KJx, they will not 'look around the room' with a surprised look on their face and tell declarer where the Ace is located.

 

I would be happy to be an expert witness and explain the reasons to underlead Aces. Even a jury that did not have any bridge knowledge should be able to follow most(all) of the above explanations, since they are mostly common sense.

 

Only for a substantial fee of course, I only give away free advice on the net when 'some' people are not aware of fairly simple reasons to underlead Aces. :)

 

You state the reason that I suggested that the ACBL might indeed settle. Why take a 95% chance, but not want to pay the lawyers. Thanks for the clear concise summary of my position. :)

 

Prove it yourself. It is too bad that you apparently do not understand American law. In this country, you do not have to prove that you are innocent. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Reasonable doubt sets you free.

 

Civil law may have different standards(10 of 12 maybe?)

 

Are you next going to tell us that there have never been any American cheats? :)

 

People that live in glass houses should not throw stones. :)

 

Thanks for the satire. You have a refreshing sense of humor.

 

The First Amendment is in good hands when we allow people like you and me to voice their 'opinion.'

 

Your use of humor to support my general case was very kind indeed.

 

Many thanks.

 

Regards,

Robert

[uday]

I'm sure this is all in the spirit of fun and learning that is a requirement for these forums. Tread lightly on each other, please

[Gerben42]

In the USA if you can sue who ever you want. You may not win, but you can force the defendent to spend money defending themselves. If you are a lawyer, you don't even need to hire anyone, just do the work yourself. Why take any risks? The ACBL may have a 95% case, but not want to pay for the lawyers.

 

Is there no such thing as a "wasting everyone's time" clause?

 

> BTW, if it's Swanson (or Truscott) that looks for such material, he'll look only for examples where it is the italians who did that, he'll never show weird US leads.

 

Prove it. How do you know they are biased only in favor of Americans, or against only the Italians? Theoretically Swanson (or Truscotts estate) could sue you for libel, for this comment,

 

Isn't it someone's right to think something and then say it? BTW, I also get the feeling that some of the American opponents of the Blue Team are just being bad losers and making an idiot of themselves by suggesting the Blue Team cheated.

[geller]

The Blue Team was famous for finding killing leads over the years.

I don't want to trigger a further flame war, so I will refrain from making the obvious reply that this remark is begging for. :)

 

 

If I happen to find the source, I will post the details. I believe that the explanation includes the idea that he needed to find his partner with a singleton to have a chance of defeating the contract. I sometimes defend based on that kind of logic.

Here's the problem (from pg 192 of Swanson's book, 'Inside the Bermuda Bowl', but originally reported in the Bridge World, among other places). You, West, hold ♠J84 ♥9 ♦A10763 ♣A986. You hear the following auction:

South North

1♠ 2♥

2♠ 3♠

4♠ Pass

 

Suppose you decide to lead a minor suit in the hope of giving your partner a ruff. Which minor do you lead? It seems obvious that the percentage lead is a diamond, since, all other things being equal, the chances of this being pard's short suit are higher than clubs. No sure thing, just an "eight ever, nine never" type of percentage-based decision.

 

Well, cutting to the video tape, Pabis-Ticci, playing for Italy in the 1968 Bermuda Bowl, lead the ♣A, and he was right, as the full hand was (Swanson gives the ♠5 to both West and South, but I arbitrarily gave West the ♠4.)

[hv=d=s&n=sk6haj632d8cqj752&w=sj84h9dat763ca986&e=sq9hqt875dj9542ct&s=sat7532hk4dkqck43]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

I agree with the various comments above about the dangers of drawing conclusions from small samples. It's a shame that ALL the hands played by this pair aren't available on "My Hands". If they were, someone could do a more systematic statistical analysis of this pair's opening leads. But as far as this one hand goes, I'm hard pressed to find a logical reason for leading a club rather than a diamond.

 

Anyway, let's all chill a little bit in this thread. :)