[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.

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]

Quote

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?

Quote

> 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]

Quote

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.

Quote

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.)

Scoring: IMP

---

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.

[ArcLight]

>>> 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?

They are presenting their opinion as a fact. Chamaco was directly saying that Swanson/Truscott would only look for examples on one side.
Chamaco has no knowledge of that. He would have been better off with a more balances statement like "Did Truscott/Swanson have look for weird leads by the USA..."



> 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.

I hardly consider Bobby Hamman an idiot or bad loser. Why not read his section on the foot tapping incident in his book and see what you think?

[Robert]

Hello Fluffy

Edgar Kaplan commented on at least one long time Blue Team pair that their behavior at the table was of the highest standard(or words to that effect)

Hello Gerben42

Meckwell is one of my favorite pairs. They also have a very high rate of 'killing leads. Does your 'begging for the obvious comment' apply to top level American pairs or just to Italian pairs?

Have you considered that a WC level player might lead relying on his years of play at WC levels? It does not matter on this hand, however on other hands, if you can get partner into the lead in one suit, he can return a card pass declarer's Kx into your AQ holding?

If you lead the short suit Ace partner is more likely to hold an assortment of cards that he can provide a 'meaningful' signal. Holding Kxx he encourages, while with xxx uses a negative signal. If he holds Kxxx or xxxx the 'meaningful' value of his signal should be even higher.

The lead of an unsupported Ace is not my normal style. I do play to defeat contracts at IMPs. Even King from 'Kx' sometimes is led in a desperate gamble that works.

Perhaps some players will 'vote'(or post) 'if' they have ever made a lead from 'Kx' and found much to their own surprise that it was the 'killing lead.'

Will anyone that posts that they have made a killing lead from 'Kx' automatically have their honesty put in doubt?

Perhaps some WC or top level players will 'vote' if they might sometimes
lead an unsported Ace in this or other hands. If they do vote to lead an Ace here, will you suspect their honesty because they 'found' a killing lead.

I have read the records of thousands of hands over many decades of play by the Blue team and have not discovered any pattern that suggests anything but good('great'?) bridge.

If a pair cheats the hand records over a period of time should raise serious doubts about their honesty.

I would be happy to let this thread die.

If you felt that negative comments were being posted on a pair that you felt were
being unfairly judged, would you post a reply? I have great regard for members of the old Blue Team. On the current situation, I do not have all of the evidence and so I prefer to wait for more hard evidence to pass judgement.

I did sent a PM to 'uday' about one member of this forum. His(her?) posts appear to suggest that his(her?) personal attacks on me were simply a result of 'someone' daring to disagree with him(her?).

I welcome honest accurate posts. Any questions about my posts are also welcome. Opinions that differ from mine are of course also welcome.

Regards,
Robert

[cherdano]

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase:
Let's stop this thread.

Thanks, Arend

[Chamaco]

Arclight,
when I wrote that post, I was not angry at you (or other posters here), I was angry at some authors that wrote such books in such a way to convince nice people and players like you that the italian Blue Team cheated.

==========

Quote

I hardly consider Bobby Hamman an idiot or bad loser.

According to the same reasoning I might say "I hardly consider Pabis-Ticci (or Garozzo, Forquet, Belladonna, Avarelli etc etc) a cheater", no ?

To be a bad loser is different than being an idiot: John Mac Enroe was a champion and a bad loser, Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov too.

I cannot say that Hamman is a bad loser, because I do not know him personally: all I can say is that the principles of justice (in sport and in real life) is that one should be considered innocent until otherwise proven.

We can accuse someone, and bring him to the jury, but if no proof of guilt arises, the accuser shuld stop insinuating afterwards.

I am sorry if I am restating the obvuous, but evidently it is not so trivial to many.

Bottomline, if you lose vs team XXX and you think they cheated, it's alright to accuse them but if they are judge as innoicent you should stop the propaganda.

Even more so, 40 years later, and without hosting the counterpart's version.

In my opinion, when you lose, accuse opps to cheat, and when they are judged innocent you go on insinuating (for 40 years) that they stole the title, well, the "bad loser" term is close enough.

But it's just me.

Quote

  Why not read his section on the foot tapping incident in his book and see what you think?

I have read Hamman's book.
Did you read Perroux's book that lists the unfair episodes by the US players ?
I am not going to list them here, it's not my will to start a flame war.

That's one difference between us, I have read the US books, and I am not sure whether you had available the italian literature on the same topic.

However, if I were you, before making an opinion of a certain gravity, I would try not to listen only one side.

When I said that Truscott/Swanson look only for the weird episodes in the italian camp, and not in their camp, I think I am stating the obvious again.
I suppose that an italian author would do the same, I think it's the human nature to highlight the more convenient episodes.

Regarding specifically the soldier's foot, I too think that was quite suspect and that's why I referred to the finals in the 1960s.

=======================

[uday]

Perhaps I'm being overly cautious, but I am locking down this thread for a brief cooling-off period