[lamford]

---

On board 144 of a match between USA and England, Reese, South, overcalled 1S on his shapely hand. He was unable to show six hearts, having only five fingers, so contented himself with showing 5+. North was known to have only one heart, so did not bother with a fit jump, and judged well to sacrifice in 6S for -300 when East, Mathe, punted the slam. North knew South was probably 5-5-2-1 or 5-6-1-1 and there were not likely to be two defensive tricks. In the other room, Dodds notched up +1540 in 6♣ doubled. "How did you know to sacrifice?", asked Mathe. "Well, I thought that South's pass over 6C invited me to do so, and I had few defensive tricks", replied Schapiro. "Well judged, partner", replied Reese.

[hrothgar]

While there are suspicious hands involving Reese and Shapiro, this one is hardly strange.

Back in the weird old days, it was far from uncommon to make canape type overcalls when a decent rebid wasn't available.

Pass is unthinkable
A 1♥ overcall will stop you from introducing Spades
I don't believe that R+S had a conventional overcall to show both majors.

1♠ is perfectly reasonable, and the fact that it worked really can't be held against the pair.

As for the later sac, please recall the the scoring tables had to be changed to prevent players from taking 7 level sacs against vulnerable slams....

I am far from an apologist for R+S, however, posts like this one just make you look stupid.

[lamford]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-07, 17:02, said:

As for the later sac, please recall the the scoring tables had to be changed to prevent players from taking 7 level sacs against vulnerable slams....

The sac was not found in the other room, and I think that two and three off doubled were the same in those days. Four off looks unlikely from North's hand. And all three hands are tongue-in-cheek rather than being presented as damning evidence. But I agree that they did not have Michaels in those days, and 1S was found in the other room too.

[hrothgar]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 17:19, said:

The sac was not found in the other room, and I think that two and three off doubled were the same in those days. Four off looks unlikely from North's hand. And all three hands are tongue-in-cheek rather than being presented as damning evidence. But I agree that they did not have Michaels in those days, and 1S was found in the other room too.

So, you're going around labeling people as cheats, but you don't intend your posts to be taken seriously?

[lamford]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-07, 17:25, said:

So, you're going around labeling people as cheats, but you don't intend your posts to be taken seriously?

I am letting people form their own conclusions. I didn't use the word cheat at any time. However plenty of publications have suggested that they might have done, and the subject is of current interest.

[hrothgar]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 17:28, said:

I am letting people form their own conclusions. I didn't use the word cheat at any time.

No, you just stated that the pair was using their fingers to signal heart length.
Hardly the same thing as calling someone a cheat.

In all seriousness, why be so mealy mouthed?
Have the stones to say what you mean.

[lamford]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-07, 17:40, said:

No, you just stated that the pair was using their fingers to signal heart length.

Hmm ... I thought Truscott said that, not I.
And the following makes the same claims:
http://www.nytimes.c...0card.html?_r=0

[hrothgar]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 17:48, said:

Hmm ... I thought Truscott said that, not I.

Too stupid to remember what you wrote 30 minutes ago?

Let me try to refresh your memory

Quote

He was unable to show six hearts, having only five fingers, so contented himself with showing 5+.

[lamford]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-07, 17:54, said:

Too stupid to remember what you wrote 30 minutes ago?

Let me try to refresh your memory

I merely repeated the allegation made by many commentators without indicating whether I believe they were true, and presented three hands, where, if the allegations were true, they might have been able to benefit. I should have said. "Truscott first made the claim, not I".

[hrothgar]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 17:57, said:

I merely repeated the allegation made by many commentators without indicating whether I believe they were true, and presented three hands, where, if the allegations were true, they might have been able to benefit. I should have said. "Truscott first made the claim, not I".

Don't believe that repetition is a defense to libel claims...

I'll double check this with some of my classmates on Wednesday.

[lamford]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-07, 18:04, said:

Don't believe the repetition is a defense to libel claims...

I'll double check this with some of my classmates on Wednesday.

No need to bother. I asked a friend, Professor of Law at a London college, and he referred me to:

http://www.holdthefr...libel-the-dead/

Both Reese and Schapiro are dead.

[the hog]

I agree with Richard. Your posts are mealy mouthed gibberish and serve no point.

[lamford]

the hog, on 2014-April-07, 18:19, said:

I agree with Richard. Your posts are mealy mouthed gibberish and serve no point.

OK, I will not add a further example, assuming your view is shared by others. Odd, mind you, that this one had 71 views in less than an hour, where the normal rate is around 20.

[broze]

How does one hold the cards to show five fingers anyway? I can see 1, 2, 3 and 4.

[gwnn]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 18:22, said:

OK, I will not add a further example, assuming your view is shared by others. Odd, mind you, that this one had 71 views in less than an hour, where the normal rate is around 20.

I really like them, for what it's worth. There's nothing wrong with drawing some good old hasty conclusions. It's up to us to decide whether we want to be convinced. I'm not sure if L&R is the right forum for this, though.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2014-April-07, 16:55, said:

On board 144 of a match between USA and England, Reese, South, overcalled 1S on his shapely hand. He was unable to show six hearts, having only five fingers, so contented himself with showing 5+. North was known to have only one heart, so did not bother with a fit jump, and judged well to sacrifice in 6S for -300 when East, Mathe, punted the slam. North knew South was probably 5-5-2-1 or 5-6-1-1 and there were not likely to be two defensive tricks. In the other room, Dodds notched up +1540 in 6♣ doubled. "How did you know to sacrifice?", asked Mathe. "Well, I thought that South's pass over 6C invited me to do so, and I had few defensive tricks", replied Schapiro. "Well judged, partner", replied Reese.

---

Thanks Paul. Again, Schapiro showed good judgement but knowledge of the ♥ misfit makes the sacrifice less attractive. Another good argument against R&S knowing each other's ♥ holding.

gwnn, on 2014-April-08, 03:17, said:

I really like them, for what it's worth. There's nothing wrong with drawing some good old hasty conclusions. It's up to us to decide whether we want to be convinced. I'm not sure if L&R is the right forum for this, though.

IMO, this is the right forum -- law-makers and directors seem reluctant to deal with rationalized or careless law-breaking and seem allergic to cheating allegations. Nevertheless, cheating should be their direct concern.

Lamford's contributions amuse us and encourage us to examine aspects of law, normally swept under the carpet. A quibble with this R&S series is that he gives no link to original reports, so that it may be hard to distinguish fact from fiction (for example, the revealing dialogues between Reese and Mathe).

[PhilKing]

It's a pretty obvious sacrifice - the real story is why they did not do so in the other room.

I don't have the hand records to hand, but from my recollection, North showed a diamond feature on the way, which South took to be the ace. Fit jumps were not played in those days, so South doubled and lead a diamond, I believe.

[lamford]

the hog, on 2014-April-07, 18:19, said:

I agree with Richard. Your posts are mealy mouthed gibberish and serve no point.

I think you are misusing "mealy-mouthed" which is "unwilling to state facts or opinions simply and directly". I directly repeated the accusation that they used finger signals to show the number of hearts they held. And mealy-mouthed is listed in the first ten dictionaries I checked as either one word or hyphenated. I suggest you look up gibberish as well, if you know how to use a dictionary (just teasing, before we have a flame war).

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2014-April-08, 03:43, said:

It's a pretty obvious sacrifice - the real story is why they did not do so in the other room.

In the other room the auction was, dealer West:
Pass-Pass-1C-1S
-2C-2S-3S-4S
-5C-5D-6C-Double
-Pass-Pass-Pass
EW were Dodds and Meredith; NS Roth and Ellenby. They notched up +1540. I would have thought here that 5D should help partner judge over 6C; I find 2S by North on the first round pretty bizarre. For whatever reason NS did not sac, and South's double also looks a poor choice. I agree the sacrifice is obvious; mind you a simulation suggests that 6C is being beaten by bad breaks 80% of the time, giving partner 8-10 with five spades and three or fewer clubs, so usually a phantom. Not an easy simulation to set up, however. If you know partner has six hearts, it is an obvious sacrifice.

[lamford]

broze, on 2014-April-08, 03:12, said:

How does one hold the cards to show five fingers anyway? I can see 1, 2, 3 and 4.

You use the thumb. "The thumb can be treated as a finger but mostly within the context of fingers. Both digits and fingers are hypernyms of the word thumb". You have to balance the cards on the thenar or the hypothenar. Better is to use the other hand for 5-8, scratching your nose with those fingers.