[cherdano]

Mike, you can read Welland's and Hampson's comments in full context on bridgewinners, no reason for you to speculate about that they said.

But more importantly: what, precisely, do you think a top player should do if he thinks that the system is broken? That there are other top players who routinely "guess" correctly whether their partner has a singleton or a doubleton? And that there is no system in place to catch them?
Welland's post seems a pretty appropriate response in that case!

I guess where we differ is that you think the system is working, and that cheats will be caught. Just think about how blatant the cheating by the doctors was, and how easy it would be to cheat in a way that is much more difficult to catch, but still quite effective (for someone who is already a very good player). Moreover, hearsay (that I find quite reliable - but sorry, I can't elaborate) makes me think that quite a number of top players think that a number of other top players are cheating routinely, and that their choices are to lose to them or to join them (in cheating).
Note I am not talking about blatant illegal signals here - just routinely getting the guess right when you know partner wouldn't have thought about his lead with a singleton, etc.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on 2015-June-17, 11:29, said:

Strictly as a bridge problem I think the ace of diamonds lead is completely automatic.

Nobody disputes that. In fact, lamford wasted an opportunity by posting the wrong problem - he should have posted the trick 2 problem.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2015-June-17, 15:44, said:

Mike, you can read Welland's and Hampson's comments in full context on bridgewinners, no reason for you to speculate about that they said.

Thanks, and I took you up on it, and what did I read?

Hampson says that a poster is nuts for asserting that the complaint was made based only on one hand. However, for all I can tell he is suggesting that we infer that whoever made the complaint (I assume the opps) must have felt that there was a history, which is an inference about the opps, not fantunes. We have no idea why the opps made the complaint...was it sour grapes over losing, or was it because of a real track record? Does Hampson mean to suggest that he personally is aware of a history of similar hands?

I've met Geoff, and socialized with him, and enjoyed his company, but we aren't by any stretch of the imagination more than distant acquaintances, so I have little to go on. However, if he meant to create the impression that we should all infer that there is a long history of weird, but winning actions indicative of cheating, then he should absolutely put up or shut up. A campaign of whispers is a disgusting thing to witness.

Welland, who I understand to be wealthy and as responsible as anyone for the influx of wealth in the upper echelons of bridge, merely laments the impact of sponsors spending so much money. Well, Roy, maybe you should try winning events playing with amateurs. As someone who has twice been crushed in the Bermuda Bowl, and who has rarely won a knockout match in other WC events, I can tell you that there is a reason you and others like you pay all that money. It is impossible to assemble a team of amateurs, who work and work hard for a living outside of bridge, to win a major event these days. Not because of cheating, but because when one has a team of very smart people who live and breathe bridge playing a team of equally smart amateur and occasional players, the outcome is not in doubt if the match is long enough. I find it hypocritical for a wealthy sponsor to moan about the impact of his spending habits on the game.

Welland makes no assertion that fantunes has a sordid history any more than Sabine does.

Quote

But more importantly: what, precisely, do you think a top player should do if he thinks that the system is broken? That there are other top players who routinely "guess" correctly whether their partner has a singleton or a doubleton? And that there is no system in place to catch them?
Welland's post seems a pretty appropriate response in that case!

I guess where we differ is that you think the system is working, and that cheats will be caught. Just think about how blatant the cheating by the doctors was, and how easy it would be to cheat in a way that is much more difficult to catch, but still quite effective (for someone who is already a very good player). Moreover, hearsay (that I find quite reliable - but sorry, I can't elaborate) makes me think that quite a number of top players think that a number of other top players are cheating routinely, and that their choices are to lose to them or to join them (in cheating).
Note I am not talking about blatant illegal signals here - just routinely getting the guess right when you know partner wouldn't have thought about his lead with a singleton, etc.

We have video recordings, and live vugraph. We have monitors. We have hyper-suspicious opps. We have the ability to compile and review detailed hand records. We know how true experts think (well, maybe 'we' don't, but the true experts all do). We have a lot of very smart people who are quite capable of figuring out how a given pair can be illegally exchanging information. By definition, if Nunes can communicate across the table to Fantones, and vice versa, then that information is out there. If one is looking for it, and if one can identify a sufficient sample of hands, then I have no doubt but that sooner or later the method will be deduced.

I'm not naïve enough to think that cheating doesn't happen. I don't expect that the game can ever be made 100% cheat-proof, but I see nothing, anywhere, to justify the suggestions that these guys have a suspicious history. I do get the sense, and got this sense many years ago, that Lauria was pissed off by the attitude of Fantunes....and the fact that they clearly enjoyed winning, and were beginning to be seen as the best players on the Italian team, which is a status I suspect Lauria long believed belonged to him. I suspect they weren't sufficiently deferential to him. I recall getting that feeling as far back as 2002.

[lamford]

cherdano, on 2015-June-17, 15:46, said:

Nobody disputes that. In fact, lamford wasted an opportunity by posting the wrong problem - he should have posted the trick 2 problem.

That was my intention as a follow-up, but the first poster knew the hand.

[Fluffy]

LOL, I guess some of you will find this funny:


" The Judge nominated two experts: Carlo Totaro and Dano De Falco."