Talk:Cheating in bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scope of article[edit]

  • formally sanctioned duplicate contract bridge since 1926
  • high stakes rubber bridge
  • no social contract bridge, auction bridge, whist or other predecessor games; not social bridge
  • individuals and teams formally accused and investigated; other incidents with a significant general public profile
  • incidents when names are named (but also some generic cases to illustrate specific points?)
  • found innocent/guilty by the WBF, Zonal organization or NBO
  • include those accused but resigned without a formal conviction or hearing
  • include those who self-identified
  • international and national tournaments; not regional or sectional tournaments
  • top-level players only (how defined?)
  • real life and fiction, eg in the 1955 James Bond novel Moonraker Narky Blert (talk) 22:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Table of Contents[edit]

  1. Lead
  2. Distinguish between conduct, ethics, ethical violations (intended and unintended UI) and cheating
  3. Official rules cited; who has jurisdiction for what
  4. a generic treatment of the various methods of cheaters - how they do it
  5. Administrative responsibilities of bridge governing bodies
    1. rules, regulations and policies; clarity around what is and is not permitted
    2. policies and procedures around policing and enforcement of rules and regulations; cheating prevention measures; cheating detection measures
    3. disciplinary procedures and actions; initial contacts, record keeping, evidence collecting
    4. initial hearing and timing; appeals procedures and timing
    5. distinguish between the Laws of Bridge and the Law of the Land (civil prosecution and civil lawsuits)
  6. Incidents chronologically
    1. who is alleged to have cheated
    2. how detected or determined
    3. the facts as adjudicated
    4. the decision by the regulatory body(ies)
    5. final disposition of the individual(s); revocation of individual awards, titles and standings
    6. decisions as to the retention or vacating of team titles; amendments to the ranking of tournament results
  7. Voluntary withdrawals
    1. investigated
    2. not investigated
  8. See also
  9. References
  10. Further reading

Careful[edit]

This draft topic is extremely sensitive and Wiki policies with respect to biographies of living persons and the requirement for a high standard of reliable and verifiable sources, properly referenced, is paramount for survival of this initiative. We should not become obsessed by a vengeful 'gotch-you' mentality. We should focus on the policies and mechanisms in place by governing bodies to detect and address suspected cheating and document what those bodies have and have not done. This is not a tabloid for racy headlines but we can and should include succinct accurate reporting of verifiable facts on specific incidents with a neutral point of view. Let not our distaste for the cheaters compromise our editorial integrity in doing the reporting. Newwhist (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much with you on WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and the need for WP:RS citations.
I'll continue to sign my posts, and to strike out rather than to edit in older ones, for your ease of reading. This is your article; feel free to delete unnecessary stuff.
I have a near-complete set of International Popular Bridge Monthly (IPBM), and an incomplete run of Bridge Magazine. If you'd like citations to their reports on specific incidents, I might be able to find them.
I notified BB by email that this sandbox page exists (and suggested that he get some rest). Narky Blert (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent or guilty[edit]

Agree with a comment by colleague Narky Blert that we should report on allegations that are investigated and where the accused are found not guilty or are found guilty of a lesser offence. This provides a more robust treatment of a variety of cases where the process (strengths and weaknesses) is as worthy of description as is the allegation. Newwhist (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newwhist: My thoughts exactly.
I would add: rumours documented in WP:RS (I stress, WP:RS) sources should be included, with "as of such a date" comments (not quite WP:OR) that nothing came of them. Mud sticks, often unfairly. Unrefuted accusations can damage reputations.
(I have one such allegation in mind, from the 1970s. I will say no more; it would worthless or worse unless backed up by WP:RS citations.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That incident took place shortly before February 1979. I can find nothing official about it, and propose to look no further. Narky Blert (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sontag-Weichsel[edit]

What is the date of the Bermuda Bowl Franklin was writing about and I will check The Bridge World magazine for any entries recognizing that this is unlikely if there was no formal intervention. Newwhist (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted all material parts of the Franklin article; he gave no dates. On checking, my mistake - it was Altman-Sontag who won the 1973 Sunday Times Invitational. Neither had then competed in any World Championship, so far as I can see. The rumours may have been about another of the 14 18 pairs in that STI. If there is no other evidence, and especially if there was no official statement, I think that that this whole section including the Franklin quote should be deleted from the draft article. I found the quote a rather unpleasant innuendo and slur ("No smoke without fire...").
It's probably not worthy of inclusion, but Sontag recounts an entertaining story in The Bridge Bum about taking some measure of revenge for one of his clients against a gang who were carving him up at high-stakes rubber bridge. Narky Blert (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative procedures: example[edit]

Far too long for inclusion in the article, and not deserving of special attention: an anonymous case from England in 1978, which nevertheless is an indication of how such things were handled:

"At an E.B.U. event earlier this year a competitor was seen altering a travelling score slip after the session to which it related had been completed. Taking into consideration the player's previous good character, his complete apology and obvious contrition, the [Laws and Ethics] Committee imposed a suspension of six months from the 4th September 1978 and the player concerned has decided not to appeal against this decision. The Committee wishes to stress that it considers offences of this nature most serious and the penalty imposed the absolute minimum available. [...] The Committee would like to state that in certain circumstances such conduct might result in expulsion from membership for an indefinite period."<ref>{{cite journal |journal=English Bridge Quarterly |issue=51 |date=November 1978 |page=11 |title=Laws and Ethics }}</ref> Narky Blert (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheating allegations at the Project page[edit]

There is significant material on cheating in bridge located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contract bridge#Cheating allegations

Two categories of incident[edit]

This has already been touched on above under "Careful" and "Innocent or guilty?", but I think we need to be careful to distinguish between cases where the relevant governing body has found cheating proved and those that remain allegations, some almost certainly true but others more doubtful. It's easy for a bridge player to become a little paranoid in defeat and to believe that he must have been cheated when perhaps he hasn't been. So I'd suggest splitting the "Incidents" section into two subsections, with titles along the lines of "Confirmed instances of cheating" (where we explain that by "confirmed" we mean a pair or team found guilty by the relevant governing body) and "Allegations of cheating". The Austrian team in 1937 would be in the second subsection. Truscott believed that cheating had been proved, but that's his opinion (and that of some others too, of course) and the Austrian team were never formally found guilty of an offence. JH (talk page) 21:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that there is a gradation of the violations of the 'rules' of the game and your suggestion may be the best initial distinction with respect to this proposed article. The overall list of categories of offences might better be reflected in the following:
  • Ethics and behaviour violations: violation of the ACBL Zero Tolerance policy, coffee housing, etc.
  • Irregularities: hesitations, leads out of turn, insufficient bids, etc.
  • Cheating by signalling or by other means.
The main focus should be the last category with subcategories as you suggest but a brief synopsis of the first two may also be in order. Repeated and deliberate violations in the first two categories constitutes an attempt to gain unfair advantage (intimidation, extracting information, watching for 'tells', etc.) and IMHO are (almost) as reprehensible as the third category. Even in the cheating category we could distinguish between:
  • 'Whispers'
  • Accusations uninvestigated
  • Accusations investigated and without a verdict, conclusion or finding
  • Accusations investigated and found not guilty or 'not proven' to some standard of proof
  • Accusations investigated and found guilty or proven to some standard of proof
In the first launch of the article, I prefer to leave the listing style generally as is but with greater clarity on which category each incident falls.
Comments? Newwhist (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good approach. The most difficult incident to categorise is likely to be Reese-Schapiro at Buenos Aires, who were found guilty by the WBL investigation but subsequently not guilty by the BBL "trial", possibly because the latter used the standard of proof in a criminal trial of beyond reasonable doubt whilst the former used a less stringent standard similar to that used in civil lawsuits. JH (talk page) 15:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In thinking about it some more, we could use the two categories:
  • Rulings by governing bodies and
  • Allegations
where both are documented incidents being in the public domain, i.e. factual and verifiable. It would meet the requirement for a neutral point of view, I think. It would also let us deal effectively with Buenos Aires. Newwhist (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willard S. Karn, 1933[edit]

Go to: Main article section re Willard S. Karn, 1933
Motivation
  • Was this a dubious business ploy by Culbertson or was there general suspicion by his fellow club members that Karn was a dealing cheat?
  • Who actually accused Karn? Culbertson? A Crockford committee? The detective? Newwhist (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References to follow up

Meredith[edit]

The titling of this section is inconsistent with that of the others, in that in this case it's the accuser rather than the accused who is named. Anybody scanning the article's contents list and not going on to read the section might assume that Meredith had been accused of cheating. But a succinct alternative title might be difficult to find. JH (talk page) 15:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An idea. Split "Incidents" into two sections. (1) Players accused of or convicted of cheating. (2) Players who have taken a public stand against cheating.
AM would fall under #2, as would a few other players worthy of mention - EK for one, and several others still alive. Narky Blert (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to title the entry as "Unspecified European pair c1950s". A bit clumsy but workable; it may even tease out who they were (fat chance though!). Newwhist (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or, simply, "Accusations by Adam Meredith". No such user (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Newwhist (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reese and Schapiro[edit]

Bibliography
  • Truscott, Alan (2004). The Great Bridge Scandal (2nd edition) Toronto: Master Point Press. ISBN 1-894154-67-3. 251 pages.
  • Reese, Terence (1966). The Story of an Accusation. London: Heinemann. LCCN 67075048. 244 pages. (US edition, 1967). New York: Simon & Schuster. LCCN 67017872. 246 pages.
References
  • The Bridge World, The Foster Bourne Report, January 1967, page 4-8.
  • The Bridge World, Why We Won by Terence Reese, January 1967, page 8-16.
  • The Bridge World, Clouds of Witnesses, January 1967, page 17-24.
  • The Bridge World, Editorial March 1968, page 64.
  • The Bridge World, Editorial October 1968, page 2.

Newwhist (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Facchini-Zuchelli[edit]

Monte Carlo[edit]

  • Harold Franklin commentary (he was Chief Tournament Director at Monte Carlo):

"Tournament bridge made the headlines once more in the least desirable of ways during the recently played World Championship contest.

"One week earlier, top ranking pairs from fourteen countries had competed in the Sunday Times Championship, a Tournament organised by the British Bridge League, and though considerable prestige attached to the winning of it, the manner in which the game was played left nothing to be desired.

"From this distance and with the limited information available, it would be wrong to form definite views on the events at Bermuda. It is not, wrong. however, to suggest that the spirit in which the game is approached has a bearing on the spirit in which it is played.

"Elsewhere in the Quarterly a report on the Sunday Times Championship shows the two winners [viz. Alan Sontag and Peter Weichsel] in action. Random photographs taken by the Press show that almost all the players have individual mannerisms in their bearing at the table.

"The competitors in London found nothing sinister in every gesture and movement and left full of praise for the winners and the tournament in general. How admirable if this approach could be extended to the loftiest as to the least of all organised of bridge events."

— Franklin, Harold, ed. (February 1975). "Editorial". EBU Quarterly (45): 1.
I have no idea what Harold Franklin was alluding to in that article (quoted in full), nor can I find any of those "headlines". The article (1) suggests to me that there had been rumours or allegations at a Bermuda Bowl, (2) suggests to me that no robust inquiry had been made, and (3) strikes me as typical (WP:OR!) of the complacent and patronising attitude of the English authorities at that time. EBU Quarterly ought to be WP:RS - but that article strikes me as anything but, my gut tells me not to trust it. It contains neither specific allegations nor refutations, just innuendo. The Bridge World might provide more reliable information. Narky Blert (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monte Carlo results from Le BRIDGEUR 6 juillet 1974 N°355 (information from Philippe Bodard on BW)
1) article général pages 28-29-30 “Suprématie italienne à Monte-Carlo”
2) page 39 : résultats
Classement :
1. Facchini-Zuchelli (Italie), 253,45%
2. Cohen-Katz (USA), 251,94%
3. Belladonna-Garozzo (Italie), 248,13%
4. Teverini-Vives (France), 241,02%
5. Mr et Me Gandini (Italie), 239,28%
6. Russel-Sontag (USA), 239,33%
7. Chagas-Assumpçao (Brésil), 239,12%
Two pairs for the price of one! Sontag's words can be read as implicating them both.
Both Franklin and Sontag were at Monte Carlo. That list seems to clarify both Sontag's sentence and Franklin's article. Narky Blert (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • also from Philippe Bodard at BW: "I can add : the same year (1974), Facchini-Zuchelli won another tournament with very important money prices (the most important money tournament in Europe because played every year) la “Coupe d'Or CINO DEL DUCCA”. The third most important tournament with money prices was Juan-les-Pins, but I dont know if Facchini-Zuchelli played this event (one thing is sure, there were not in the top ten)"
There's a typo in PB's comment - it's Cino Del Duca. Narky Blert (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barnet Shenkin states in his book Playing With the Bridge Legends (page 16) that the Italians (unstated but presumably Facchini-Zuchelli) won the 1974 Monte Carlo event. No inferences about any cheating.
  • Gianfranco Facchini and Sergio Zucchelli won the Sunday Times Invitational Pairs in 1974. This is not the same event alluded to; The Sunday Times Invitational Pairs was always held in London, around New Year. Narky Blert (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nicknames: The two are known as the 'Foot Soldiers' and 'the Vegetables'. Both nicknames are at least mildly insulting, and need solid citations: WP:BLP. Narky Blert (talk) 20:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cokin-Sion[edit]

2014 article by Judy Kay-Wolff Narky Blert (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ma et al[edit]

Unique case in that it was the first case wherein a team and not one individual or pair were suspended. (to be verified)

Disposition as of April 2016

Newwhist (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soren Godtfredsen and Sorin Lupan, 1990[edit]

Reference needed that Ron Klinger wrote an article in Australian Bridge magazine which point-blank accused them of cheating. `Newwhist (talk)

Tony Haworth, c1999[edit]

  • Tony Haworth, c. 1999. Welsh international who fed a cold deck into a match. It was a previously-played Kelsey-Ottlik type hand, and several players recognised it. See David Gold's, Gordon Rainsford's and Tom Townsend's posts on this BridgeWinners thread.
  • TH has served his penalty, and is now (October 2015) both playing and TDing (this link is relevant, but includes nothing meaningful).

Haworth[edit]

I've drafted a section, and doubt I will have anything more to add. It could obviously be cut down if overlong.

Perhaps for a section discussing the way the authorities handle allegations: this case looks like a model of efficiency. The offences were detected on September 11, and Haworth's team disqualified the same day. His teammates cooperated with the investigation, and received financial compensation for the expenses they had incurred. A hearing was held on November 12, and the decision issued on November 23. This is all documented in the Bridge Magazine citation. Narky Blert (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disa Eythorsdottir 2002[edit]

If she had a prescription, surely she could have substantiated it after the fact. Are we saying that:

  1. she did not have a prescription
  2. she had one and failed to provide evidence of it after the fact
  3. had she taken the test and been found in violation, would her post event evidence of the prescription have been sufficient to avoid sanction
  4. in the case of the point 3 above, would she have been sanctioned anyways for failing to get a 'prior' certificate?

Newwhist (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of anyone that is aware of the exact rules in place for drug testing for WBF back in 2002. There are some public interviews with Disa from that period. I can ask her, but that doesn't make necessarily make it WP:RS. Compare the IOC response for drug testing on teams - if one member is later disqualified, the entire team is. I think you need to find a WBF source that will go on the record about what happened.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Buratti and Massimo Lanzarotti, 2005[edit]

  1. Need a reference that they have been referred to as the "Racecars" (Andretti)/Maserati). Newwhist (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  2.  Done. Corrected. The current edition (August 12, 2016) of the text is internally contradictory as to who is dummy and who is declarer. Requires a reference. Newwhist (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helgemo et al, 2009[edit]

Helgemo and others agreed to report a score for a match that was never played in 2009. The story is well known. I haven't done much research to find WP:RS.

Boye wrote some at http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/what-happened-to-the-post-about-the-falsified-swiss-match-result to defend accusation that it included Tor.

"Tor Helness was not part of the two teams which got a one year suspension for a falsified match result (the match was never played, but the reported result made sure that both teams would advance to the next round of the Norwegian club championships)."

This incident involves a top World player and so should be included. Some of WP:RS may be in Norwegian, so any editors familiar with the language, please write up....

"Hearing was held fall national in San Diego when all three players were allow to present their case and all three played in the 2009 San Diego Fall Nationals." If anyone wants to research the NABC Daily Bulletins for details.

Nicolas.hammond (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's more details on the ACBL suspension at http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/0902-exhibits/2009_2_Washington_board_minutes.pdf and http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/about/0903-exhibits/2009_3_San_Diego_board_minutes.pdf Nicolas.hammond (talk)

Michael Elinescu and Entscho Wladow[edit]

  • from the March 31 2014 newspaper article in the Independent reference: the Independent newspaper (UK) March 31, 2014
    • "After a two-day hearing in a Dallas hotel last week, the game’s governing body [WBF] declared that Michael Elinescu, 61, and Entscho Wladow, 71, had deployed subterfuge in the shape of a system of coded coughs to win the bridge world finals during a fiercely-contested tournament in Bali last year." Also: "In a judgment which demolishes the image of bridge as a high-minded pursuit unsullied by trickery, the WBF found the Germans, both medical doctors, had broken law 73B of the game."
    • the article reports that the German Bridge Federation (DBV) said its two star players were considering an appeal against the decision and there was an innocent explanation for their spluttering. In documents addressed to the WBF, the DBV said that far from cheating, its two team members had fallen foul of the humid Bali weather and an ineffectual air conditioning unit which had left most tournament players with a cough.
    • the article goes on to say "In a further letter, the German body said its own internal investigation had found no evidence of cheating. It added: “Dr Wladow and Dr Elinescu [affirmed] unmistakably to us that the allegation they are accused of do not apply and were not committed by them.”
  • the method allegedly involved coughing
  • they claim they are innocent
  • Commentary on the Bridge Winners website regarding the steps taken by Urich Wenning, President of the DBF: Reference: Comments by David Cole at Bridge Winners Sep 22. "He tried to get the hearing of the case changed to a date where he could appear. Upon receiving the evidence he appointed a team of top German players to investigate the accusations and suspended the doctors. The players investigating all found that the doctors were guilty. The doctors were then banned for 10 years. The case is now going through the German legal system."

Fisher and Schwartz[edit]

Please make any future updates to this section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fisher_and_Schwartz_cheating_allegation. The specific detail should be on that page. I have copied the current data to that page. Will delete from this section after a period of time.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References
"If someone found a couple of timeline mistakes, those will be corrected in the printed version which will run in the October 9 Newsweek issue. I take my hat off for John Walters and all the work he put into this article. Bridge is such a good game!"

Fantoni and Nunes[edit]

On Fantoni's web site:

We will not comment on allegations at this time reserving our rights to reply in a more appropriate setting.

I removed the comment in the main page that they did not respond to allegations.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Smirnov and Josef Piekarek[edit]

  • Alexander Smirnov and Josef Piekarek admit to ethical violations in previous events.
    • Piekarek and Smirnov state: "We have voluntarily agreed never again to play competitive bridge together and to take two years off from playing competitive bridge.”
    • Piekarek and Smirnov acknowledge to awareness of "whispers" about them
  • No specifics are given and the DBF is investigating, Sep 22
  • Accordingly, the DBF withdraws German team from BB 2015, Sep 22
Reference links

Cezary Balicki and Adam Zmudzinski[edit]

Verifiable facts
  • the WBF Credentials Committee rescinds its invitation to Polish players Cezary Balicki and Adam Zmudzinski to the 2015 Bermuda Bowl. No reason is cited.
  • the Polish team is permitted to play but without them.
Reference links
Translation of Balicki statement by Cathy Baldysz on the Bridge Winners site

"The time has now passed when the outcry surrounding our partnership can harm our colleagues, who I sincerely congratulate for winning the World Championship. I only regret that we were unable to participate in this success, although this is not the least of what I regret, since before we had even returned home we were lynched and sentenced by the Internet press. Even though the damage inflicted is now beyond repair and the end of our mutual career has become fact, I have to stand in defence of our long-standing partnership. As our Chairman already pointed out, we garnered quite a few enemies, like those who lost to us in different events, those who felt we had taken spots that belonged to them or those on various international teams or the Polish National team. Without going further on this subject, I’ll get to the issue at hand. I strongly suspect that all the arguments against us were manipulated and calculated to appear in such a way that none of the readers would be able to verify them, for the long and painstaking work that would be required. This is how we have been treated by those accusing us. We were attacked three times after each preceding attempt ended in failure. The accusation that most impacted subsequent events occurred just before the Bermuda Bowl, in which Boye Brogeland presented two matches with an analysis of 6 deals and on the basis of this information and without even a few days for analysis the WBF commission believed Boye and withdrew our invitation to the Bermuda Bowl. This accusation has already been greatly discounted. I suggest you read Krzystof Jassem’s article “Rumour and Mathematics”, which in any case I feel lets Brogeland off lightly. Regardless of what conclusions you reach, notice how easy it is to manipulate opinions on the Internet. When the first accusation did not deliver the expected result, the next attack was launched – on our mannerisms on opening lead. And here the method of operation was very similar. There were no analysed hands, intentionally chosen clips from the video recordings and no correlation to the leads made. Of course, no one bothered to check what the typical mannerisms are for us or many other pairs in stressful or tiring situations. This is exactly how players behave who have for their entire bridge lives filled out scorecards and entered the scores into the bridgemates. After analysing 336 deals from Opatija 2014, half of which we were on lead, you won’t see one hand, including part score deals, where a lead was suspicious or very lucky. On the other hand there are several deals in which we didn’t lead well in simple situations that cost us a lot of points. Take the deal against Brogeland, where I personally made a serious error from lack of knowledge about declarer’s distribution. Despite the lead of the ace of hearts and a club continuation, we managed to let the contract make, although that would have seemed impossible.

Poland – Norway
Deal 24
3NT
♠ K96
♥ AK
♦ 853
♣ AJ985
♠ QJ72

N

W               E

S

 ♠ A543
♥ QJ106 ♥ 43
♦ AQ ♦ K10942
♣ 643 ♣ KQ
Lead:♥A ♠ 108
♥ 98752
♦ J76
♣ 1072
Result: -400

I ask for further questions, since the documentation of Opatija 2014 is incomplete.

The third attack came a few days ago. Here, in the face of forthcoming decisions by official bodies, the prosecutors did not even get the facts straight. They appointed their jury and tried to push through the revived theory of Brogeland’s. It came out just like they wanted it to, but look at the first two hands in their analysis.

Poland – France
Deal 27
♠ AJ5

W             E

 ♠ 8632
♥ AKQ4 ♥ 98
♦ A72 ♦ 84
♣ Q105 ♣ K9843
West North East South
CB AŻ
— — — Pass
1♣ 1♠ Pass 1NT
Dbl 2♦ 3♣

Kit Woolsey’s analysis:

3♣ close to the pass – a weak bid.

My analysis:

  1. 3♣ is weak, 2♠ would be invitational, I can’t have good clubs because I didn’t bid a non-forcing 2♣. The maximum for 3♣ is A109xx.
  2. If Adam had read the bid as the accusers suggest as a super minimum, then why did he bid 3NT down three for minus 150? Of course, it’s not given in the analysis — as usual.

Additionally, Adam’s double, which is closer to the pass than my 3♣, was not properly analysed. He in fact had AJx AKQx Axx Q10x, or a 20-count, but pointing this out was not in the interest of those making the analysis.

Poland – Dania
Deal 26
♠ AKxxx ♥ A ♦ KJxxx ♣ xx
West North East South
CB AŻ
— — Pass Pass
1♣ 1♥ Pass 1♠
3♣ Dbl

Kit Woolsey’s analysis:

1♣ — strong 16 +
1♥ — 54 odds or 4441 8-15
1♠ — pass or correct ♠/♣
X — spades and diamonds, pass would be hearts and clubs
The double placed at a distance suggests a maximum.

My analysis:

  1. We have long played that for unbalanced hands the point count range is 8–17 and only for balanced hands do we pass over a strong club that is also over 16.
  2. 1♠ is not spades or clubs, but “bid your longest suit”.
  3. The double means spades and diamonds 5–5; 15 – 17 (vulnerable); with a good 6–4 we bid a suit.
  4. Pass would deny a maximum.

Conclusion: Kit Woolsey, who took on our case for over a month, didn’t even bother to familiarize himself with basic sequences. He twisted his comments to support the theory he had formed. Of course, in the presented deals the finished auctions are not given. This is flashy proof in the same style as the accusations. I hope, that you will not allow yourselves to be manipulated by Internet sharpsters.

Cezary Balicki"

Mike Passell, 2015[edit]

Go to: Main article section re Mike Passell, 2015

ACBL Loose ends[edit]

Ken Warren[edit]

We need to add something on himNicolas.hammond (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Rosen[edit]

  • Posted by Nigel Guthrie on the Bridge Winner website on topic ACBL Task Force Takes on Cheating
"The ACBL sacked the official recorder when he wanted to investigate a board-member and his cronies. The 4 assistant-recorders resigned in protest."
  • Posted by David Babcock on the Bridge Winner website on topic Where do we go from here?
"There is a further aspect of any reform that IMHO needs to be discussed but hasn't been: how to ensure that anyone who is suspect and also happens to be in a position of power cannot avoid accountability by, for example, getting the recorder fired, as happened to Bob Rosen. The emphasis on privacy rights in the early stages of a proceeding is well motivated and certainly for the best in most circumstances, but IMHO this downside does need to be acknowledged and addressed."
  • Does anyone know more details?
  1. Bob Rosen RIP by Joshua Donn, comments by Bart Bramley and by Bobby Wolff.
  2. The Videos Speak: Fantoni-Nunes by Kit Woolsey, comments by Judy Kay-Wolff and by Jeff Meckstroth.
I may have seen additional info on another BW thread. All anecdotal; I doubt anything WP:RS exists. Narky Blert (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Bramley: 20+ years ago Bob was the National Recorder and I was one of 4 or 5 assistant Recorders. Over a period of about twelve months Bob noticed that there were several complaints about one player and decided to act on the accumulation of evidence. This is how the Recorder system is supposed to work. The problem was that the player was a member of the BOD, and, moreover, was potentially going to be President of ACBL. Bob convened a meeting of all Recorders during the next National, and we heard direct testimony from the player. We, the Recorders, decided unanimously to submit a report to the ACBL Board. Bob drafted a letter, which we all signed. Bob sent it to the current League President, with instructions for it to be distributed to the whole Board. But when Bob realized that the distribution had not occurred, he himself sent the letter to the rest of the Board. We were not on a vendetta against the player. Rather, our primary motivation was to prevent a potentially embarrassing situation for the Board and one of its members, by stopping a problem before it got worse. The reaction was not what Bob (or any of us) had hoped for. Instead of honoring our intent, the Board (through the President) brought charges against Bob for “abusing” his position as Recorder. A hearing was held at the subsequent National, and the result was that Bob was fired as Recorder. In support of Bob I immediately resigned in protest, as did several other assistant Recorders.

Bobby Wolff: Mr. Rosen was victimized by our esteemed Board of Directors when the EOC unanimously found a future Board Official guilty of a heinous bridge impropriety and when Bob appealed to the BOD to reverse their ridiculous, self-serving decision, not only was his plea declined, but he was handed his walking papers as well.

Jeff Meckstroth: I can attest to the statements about Bob Rosen. At the time he was the chief recorder for the ACBL. The other national recorders were myself, Bart Bramley, John Sutherlin, and Dennis Clerkin. All 4 of us resigned our positions in protest of the TOTALLY absurd ousting of Mr. Rosen.

Pat Mizell: More than a few years back, I got involved in bridge politics and was privy to some conversations that most don't hear. In the President's Suite at a major tournament a international player I knew quite well came to a member of the ACBL Board of Directors who was standing next to me with the following news-he had broken the code of a well known pair who had been under suspicion for a long time and was ready to file a formal charge of premeditated cheating. The Board of Directors member gave him a very simple answer–“they are friends of mine and if you ever utter one word about this I'll see that you are ruined”[1]

Suspended list[edit]

Loose threads and innuendo[edit]

Messages in toilet[edit]

  • In the attached a reference is made to "crude messages being left in toilet radiator caps"
  • what is this about?

Chico Marx[edit]

  • Posted by Jonathan Steinberg at Bridge Winners Sept. 23, 2015: "The Chico Marx clip from the 1930's is priceless!" made under a thread about and the Newsweek article by Walters on Boye Brogeland
  • what is this about?

Chico Marx[edit]

This refers to a scene in the film Animal Magic, in which Chico and Harpo outrageously cheat in a bridge game against Margaret Dumont's character and another player: [1] JH (talk page) 19:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read somewhere that Harpo was a seriously useful money-bridge player, so I'd put the scene down to The Marx Brothers not just to Chico. FWIW, I think the fourth in that clip is Lillian Roth. Narky Blert (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

References

  1. ^ Reference: Bridge Winners article - "Count the ACBL in"

Launch[edit]

The majority of the initial material is sourced from my previous sandbox draft. It is in pretty rough shape but adequate to qualify for 'start' status IMHO. I would have preferred to incubate the stuff more but the momentum of interest is better served by publishing now. I expect some heavy opinions on the subject and will let those more intimately aware make improvements in this, a more public forum than my draft sandbox page allowed.

It will be extremely important to respect Wiki policy on providing reliable references for all asserted facts and to maintain a neutral point of view in the presentation style. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a blog for venting and accusing with one's personal views.

I will be taking the liberty of moving relevant material to this talk page in order to consolidate previous discussions amongst the editors who have previously been engaged in this topic. Some of these loose ends may be rubbish but that can be sorted out and deleted in due course; it is retained initially to ensure no useful leads are neglected. Newwhist (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Newwhist, great work. Technically, the page should have been moved rather than copied/pasted from your sandbox (to preserve contribution history), but as you are the major contributor of the material (as far as I know, User talk:Newwhist/sandbox/Project WPCB/Cheating in bridge (draft) is now deleted along with the history), it does not matter much. No such user (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Newwhist: - excellently done. I can't say the article is a pleasure to read, but that's solely for reasons relating to bridge and not to Wiki. I agree with both the "class C" and "high importance" ratings - and with your stressing the importance of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.
IMO the best thing to do with loose ends and false leads is for another editor to mark them as dead ends with reasons, or for the original editor to strike them out. That preserves the history. Narky Blert (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-cheating measures[edit]

I see that a lot has happened while I was away on vacation. Congratulations to Newwhist in particular on his excellent work. Would it be worth adding a short section on measures that have been adopted to try to prevent cheating? I'm thinking of bidding boxes (already mentioned in passing) and screens. JH (talk page) 09:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. First, each incident should have information about what measures were implemented as a direct result of the specific incident - probably not many that can be so explicitly linked but this would include warnings and interim measures such as putting blocks under the table. Second, an overview section on the topic as you suggest. Where would the section be located? After the incidents section? or part of the as yet incomplete 'Governing bodies' section? The list of countermeasures would include: the role of monitors, video and audio surveillance, statistical analysis of hands, changes to the Laws, procedural changes for the handling of allegations, investigations and sanctions. FYI, I have a draft outline of material and structure for the 'Governing bodies' section at my sandbox here. It is a crude mind dump. Newwhist (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Blue Team, cheating allegations[edit]

According to Bob Hamman, as quoted by David Owen in his New Yorker piece "Dirty Hands" (which is referenced in our own article and is available online), the Dallas Aces believed that the Italian Blue Team was cheating against them. He reckons that the Blue Team had two great players (Garozzo and Forquet?) and one very good one (Belladonna?), but that the other three weren't much good, presumably implying that cheating was the only way to account for the team's enormous success. He suggests that hand gestures and the positioning of their cigarettes may have been used as signals. In the absence of any hard evidence or formal accusation, is it worth including a section on this? JH (talk page) 17:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but a good topic if dealt with properly. The conjecture about the Blue Team cheating is out there but my personal sense is that they are more in the 'innuendo/allegations' category than in the 'found guilty' category; some pairs may be guilty but I doubt that the whole team would have been involved at any one time. Thorough research and solid references would be prudent on any treatment of the subject. Newwhist (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
New evidence in a thoroughly referenced book by Avon Wilsmore (2018) titled Under the Table demonstrates that the entire Blue Team was accussed on several occassions of cheating from early on in their careers. Additional details and references should be pursued. The material more properly belongs in the Blue Team article. I will take a crack at it there. Newwhist (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Burguy tapes[edit]

This section previously contained the sentence "It is reported that the tape was lost and "no transcript exists.""; it carried a citation required tag [citation needed]. I myself had included the sentence when I launched the Cheating in bridge article in June 2016. I have reviewed each of the three references originally cited and none contain that sentence. I am unable to find any reference at this time as to why that sentence was included. Accordingly, I have removed it. Newwhist (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Since the foregoing post, additional history of the article has been restored from archives. It shows that the source of the phrase comes from [here ]. A review of the edit history shows that the phrase was taken out of context and it's removal is justified. Newwhist (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schneider and Reithoffer[edit]

Heads up! I recently added a reference (The Guardian newspaper article of 11 February 1964 of which I now have a pdf copy) which is at odds with statements contained in the book by Alan Truscott, also cited as a reference. The book states no inquiry was held but the newspaper article states that an appeal committee was held and found that the allegation was "without foundation". Additional checking is required to clarify. Newwhist (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NY times article Oct 2021[edit]

FYI: article about bridge cheating:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/26/arts/contract-bridge-cheating.html

Oct 2021.

76.167.218.93 (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Top players cheating online[edit]

Some top players have been convicted of cheating online, Bertens, Upmark come to mind. They should be added. I am probably too close to the cases therefore someone else should write them Nicolas.hammond (talk)

Lorenzini[edit]

His original confession was here: https://ocbl.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Bul_05.pdf but that URL no longer exists. The Wayback machine does not have a copy. Someone uploaded the original bulletin here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fFka4zJ91T-vfKrZeME_lne2vY36I0ni/view. This generates a warning on Wikipedia because google.com is considered a 'blogging site'.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheating_in_bridge&oldid=1200812951"