[McBruce]

Erkson, on Aug 3 2005, 11:45 PM, said:

Quote

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]

McBruce, on Aug 4 2005, 11:18 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

McBruce, on Aug 5 2005, 08:07 AM, said:

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]

Walddk, on Aug 5 2005, 02:59 AM, said:

McBruce, on Aug 5 2005, 08:07 AM, said:

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).

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Nov 24 2005, 02:34 PM, said:

After reading Alan Truscotts book I have my doubt about the integrity of the famous Italian Blue team.

That's what I feared.

It's not the first time some high level US player suggested that, and I find it very sad.

Of course you might want to read the italian version of the facts, including episodes where it was the italians who claimed to be victims of unethical behaviours during the matches vs USA.

Unfortunately I do not think that Perroux's book about the blue team (which mention such episodes) is available in english.

I hoped that we were all old enough to know that it would be nice to hear both sides of the versions, but unfortunately, it seems that the version popularized by a fw high level US players ad writers should be considered the most objective, and that we should credit their versions as more reliable that the one of their opps.

Personally, I think that anyone that suggests the italian Blue Team cheated, either owes a big apology, or should include the reply of the counterpart, otherwise it is just another case of propaganda via the easier access to publishing/broadcasting medias.

[Al_U_Card]

Robert, on Nov 24 2005, 07:13 AM, said:

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

I am not a lawyer, but libel is making unsubstantiated comments in print, while slander is making them verbally...

[mikeh]

Al_U_Card, on Nov 24 2005, 10:25 AM, said:

Robert, on Nov 24 2005, 07:13 AM, said:

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

I am not a lawyer, but libel is making unsubstantiated comments in print, while slander is making them verbally...

I am a lawyer, who does defamation litigation, amongst other matters . You are close: but with the advent of radio, television and the internet, it is probably more accurate to say that libel is anything that is published or broadcast: slander would be purely verbal, spoken in a context in which only those physically present could hear. A radio interview, as an example, can give rise to an action in libel. The distinction continues to have significant meaning in Commonwealth countries (I do not know if this is true in all such countries, and I do know that US laws are somewhat different).

Anyway, I agree with those who deplore one-sided versions of events. One of the problems with defamation is that it is human nature to want to believe bad things about successful people... about people generally in fact. Hence the popularity of gossip. I do not claim immunity from that inclination