[the hog]

HeavyDluxe, on Oct 18 2009, 04:50 AM, said:

snipped

Regardless, I agree with previous posters that the absence of a roaring, vehement denial is absolutely puzzling to me.

Whether or not it is true, it's a shame that the rumors casts such a pall over a reign in international bridge that was truly mammoth.

Probably because to deny it is to dignify such tripe with a response.
As Richard pointed out, Wolff has been accused of cheating on other forums, ie using his influence to change the results of an appeal. Apparently there is written evidence to substatiate this. He has never denied this. Is his silence deafening?

On another blog, even Sontag's editor states that Sontag used intimidation when playing against a Far Eastern pair. This is against the rules and against any notion of fair play and is cheating. Sontag has never denied it. Is his silence deafening?

About the only comment of yours with which I concur is your final one.

I suggest you read "Fair Means Or Foul" by Cathy Chua.

[Lobowolf]

The_Hog, on Oct 17 2009, 07:45 PM, said:

HeavyDluxe, on Oct 18 2009, 04:50 AM, said:

snipped

Regardless, I agree with previous posters that the absence of a roaring, vehement denial is absolutely puzzling to me.

Whether or not it is true, it's a shame that the rumors casts such a pall over a reign in international bridge that was truly mammoth.

About the only comment of yours with which I concur is your final one.

If it's true, it's a shame that it was only a rumor, and not conclusive proof known to everyone.

Why SHOULDN'T there be a pall over a mammoth reign that came about by cheating? It's only a shame if it's false.

[fred]

The_Hog, on Oct 18 2009, 12:45 AM, said:

I suggest you read "Fair Means Or Foul" by Cathy Chua.

With all due respect to Cathy Chua, given that this suggestion comes from someone who:

1) Clearly has his mind made up already and seems to me to be unwilling to even entertain the notion that he might not be 100% right

2) Dismisses the strong opinions of one (actually more than one) of the most successful and experienced bridge players in history as "tripe" (and similar)

3) Seems to think that his own analysis of bridge hands is considerably more enlightening than that of one (actually more than one) of the most successful and experienced bridge players in history

4) Seems to me to exhibit a clear anti-American bias (maybe a coincidence)

5) Seems to believe in shooting the messenger when he doesn't agree with their messages

6) Seems to be suggesting that Cathy Chua (who I am sure is a wonderful person, a fine bridge player, and does excellent research concerning events she was not involved in) is more qualified to speak of these matters than people like Bobby Wolff, Bob Hamman, and John Swanson (who were very much involved in these events and who probably know a little more about bridge than Cathy Chua).

I would not be personally feel inclined to put much stock in this suggestion.

If anyone cares what I think about the Blue Team, I am sorry, but unlike The Hog I do not feel that I am qualified to speak publicly on this matter.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[the hog]

So you dismiss Peter Gill's comments as well? Interesting! Peter is one of the most astute students of the game that I know.
As for anti US bias, that is also tripe. However there does seem to be a bit of bias on your part, Fred.

[aguahombre]

Patiently reading all of this and waiting for something new. I want my "heroes" to be innocent. That didn't work well with O.J. and Nixon. I wanted Katz and Cohen to be proved innocent. That didn't happen, but neither were they proved to have done wrong, IMHO. As for the others, I keep reading stuff and have no clue as to who is right. But, I don't think anyone who posted knows the answers. Maybe this whole thing should have been in the Water Cooler, where everyone is willing to espouse his/her opinions but is not as willing to entertain the opinions of others.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Oct 17 2009, 08:56 PM, said:

As for anti US bias, that is also tripe.

LOL

[HeavyDluxe]

Lobowolf, on Oct 17 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

Why SHOULDN'T there be a pall over a mammoth reign that came about by cheating? It's only a shame if it's false.

I guess my point was that the speculation and subterfuge is likely more problematic than the truth.

As far as the Hog's comments go... I am not familiar with the 'forum' in which Wolff's ethics re: rulings on appeal has been called into question. Assuming that it's a reputable source, then I would expect him to deny the allegation publicly and fight it. If, however, it's an allegation by some no-name hack like me on a 'forum' here on the internet, I would expect him to shrug it off.

[Cascade]

Jlall, on Oct 18 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

I agree there are those who bend over backwards when they have UI to not use it, this is how I was taught and I think my personal hero Bob Hamman is the best at this and I'm happy I got to learn a sense of his ethics, but in my experience this is far and away the exception not the rule.

It is interesting that you say this as this is not the impression that I got of Bob Hamman from reading his own book. Where he seems to admit to engaging in unethical conduct.

"Ron could have called the director and sought a conduct penalty against me. But it would have been like admitting he couldn't take the needle. He had been dishing it out, and to call the director would have been psychological surrender. It would have signaled that he couldn't take it. He would have won the battle but lost the war.

The point is that in the main event of any competitive endeavor, you had best be prepared to play hard ball - literally in some arenas, figuratively in others. You wouldn't be surprised to get a thumb in the eye on the first play from scrimmage in the Super Bowl - or an elbow in the jaw in the NBA final. Well bridge is no different.

Nobody's going to punch or kick you, but the other guy is there to beat you - period. It's fierce competition, not a social situation. The politeness police are not part of the scene. In many settings, such as a local duplicate club, I don't beat up on my opponents because most of them are pleasure players and they are not really challenging me. When I'm in a major event like the Spingold, however, I don't ask for quarter and I don't give it."

I don't find the things that Hamman advocates to be what I would consider fair play - beating up on opponents, not being polite.

[the hog]

fred, on Oct 18 2009, 08:49 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 18 2009, 12:45 AM, said:

I suggest you read "Fair Means Or Foul" by Cathy Chua.

With all due respect to Cathy Chua, given that this suggestion comes from someone who:

1) Clearly has his mind made up already and seems to me to be unwilling to even entertain the notion that he might not be 100% right

2) Dismisses the strong opinions of one (actually more than one) of the most successful and experienced bridge players in history as "tripe" (and similar)

3) Seems to think that his own analysis of bridge hands is considerably more enlightening than that of one (actually more than one) of the most successful and experienced bridge players in history

4) Seems to me to exhibit a clear anti-American bias (maybe a coincidence)

5) Seems to believe in shooting the messenger when he doesn't agree with their messages

6) Seems to be suggesting that Cathy Chua (who I am sure is a wonderful person, a fine bridge player, and does excellent research concerning events she was not involved in) is more qualified to speak of these matters than people like Bobby Wolff, Bob Hamman, and John Swanson (who were very much involved in these events and who probably know a little more about bridge than Cathy Chua).

I would not be personally feel inclined to put much stock in this suggestion.

If anyone cares what I think about the Blue Team, I am sorry, but unlike The Hog I do not feel that I am qualified to speak publicly on this matter.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Seeing as you have criticized me on two separate forums, lets see on what areas we agree and disagree:

1) Agree that Wolff accused the SA of cheating

2) Agree that his comment is an opinion and that he has offered no evidence whatsoever.
* If we disagree on this latter point perhaps you can point me in the direction of the evidence because I cannnot find it.

3) Agree that cheating is pretty despicable.

Where we appear not to agree:

1) Stating opinions of cheating publicly without offering any proof is despicable behaviour.

2) That Wolff's opinions can't be criticized nor his approach criticized because he has gravitas. (See point 6 of your post.)

With reference to 2) above: to quote a much used by you adverb in this thread, such a contention is moronic. Appeals to authority are a very poor form of logic. Simply because someone does not have gravitas does not mean that one cannot criticize the faulted arguments and lack of evidence of those who make public contentions. To draw an analogy, it would be akin to the leader of a country saying "We must invade Iraq because that country has wmd. I have no evidence of that fact, I just know because I am ......(Insert Tony Blair or Bush the lesser here). You have got to trust me on this."

Actually if you do want gravitas: I assume you are aware of the public challenge made by the late Tim Seres in Australian Bridge when accusations of cheating were first made against the SA? Seres offered a bet of 10,000 pounds if anyone could prove cheating. (That was a lot of money in those days). No one took up the offer. I wonder why? Does Seres have enough gravitas for you?

Finally, the use of ad hominem attacks against me by accusing me of anti US bias is beneath you.

[Cascade]

PeterGill, on Oct 18 2009, 02:49 AM, said:

one of my some-time bridge partners has studied every opening lead by some Blue Team members and concluded innocence

I have talked with this player about this study.

If I recall correctly he made the comment that they were average or maybe worse when it came to opening leads. There advantage was in "five card endings" - but I don't think he was suggesting literally only five-card endings.

"Bridge with the Blue Team" is magical.

[hanp]

Cascade, on Oct 18 2009, 01:06 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 18 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

I agree there are those who bend over backwards when they have UI to not use it, this is how I was taught and I think my personal hero Bob Hamman is the best at this and I'm happy I got to learn a sense of his ethics, but in my experience this is far and away the exception not the rule.

It is interesting that you say this as this is not the impression that I got of Bob Hamman from reading his own book. Where he seems to admit to engaging in unethical conduct.

"Ron could have called the director and sought a conduct penalty against me. But it would have been like admitting he couldn't take the needle. He had been dishing it out, and to call the director would have been psychological surrender. It would have signaled that he couldn't take it. He would have won the battle but lost the war.

The point is that in the main event of any competitive endeavor, you had best be prepared to play hard ball - literally in some arenas, figuratively in others. You wouldn't be surprised to get a thumb in the eye on the first play from scrimmage in the Super Bowl - or an elbow in the jaw in the NBA final. Well bridge is no different.

Nobody's going to punch or kick you, but the other guy is there to beat you - period. It's fierce competition, not a social situation. The politeness police are not part of the scene. In many settings, such as a local duplicate club, I don't beat up on my opponents because most of them are pleasure players and they are not really challenging me. When I'm in a major event like the Spingold, however, I don't ask for quarter and I don't give it."

I don't find the things that Hamman advocates to be what I would consider fair play - beating up on opponents, not being polite.

I don't like how you equate (what I consider) cheating and (what you consider) impoliteness. You can put both under the header of "unethical behavior", but they are very different.

[gnasher]

hanp, on Oct 18 2009, 10:52 AM, said:

I don't like how you equate (what I consider) cheating and (what you consider) impoliteness. You can put both under the header of "unethical behavior", but they are very different.

Discourtesy to an opponent is against the rules. Knowingly breaking the rules in order to gain an advantage is cheating, isn't it? It may not be the same sort of cheating as leading a singleton diagonally, but it's still cheating.

Most of the discourtesy we encounter at the bridge table isn't cheating, of course. If you're unpleasant to an opponent because you're annoyed or you don't like him, that's just a breach of the rules.

[RMB1]

gnasher, on Oct 18 2009, 11:38 AM, said:

Most of the discourtesy we encounter at the bridge table isn't cheating, of course.  If you're unpleasant to an opponent because you're annoyed or you don't like him, that's just a breach of the rules.

I observe (some) players use their annoyance or expression of dislike to knowingly disconcert an opponent, and to gain an advantage. This is still cheating.

Robin

[hrothgar]

fred, on Oct 18 2009, 04:49 AM, said:

6) Seems to be suggesting that Cathy Chua (who I am sure is a wonderful person, a fine bridge player, and does excellent research concerning events she was not involved in) is more qualified to speak of these matters than people like Bobby Wolff, Bob Hamman, and John Swanson (who were very much involved in these events and who probably know a little more about bridge than Cathy Chua).

Fred:

The obvious rejoinder to comments like this is: Bob Hamman, Bobby Wolff, and John Swanson were never able to beat the Blue Team. How can we expect these players to be qualified to comment about a level of play that they - obviously - are incapable of understanding.

Please note: I am NOT making this argument. In general, I think that the merits any argument should be evaluated based on factual basis; not based on who is advancing the claim.

I definitely feel that there are exceptions to this rule. There are plenty of people and groups who I don't think deal in these types of discussions in good faith. (In these cases, I think that its entirely appropriate to shoot the messenger).

I don't think that Chua falls in this category of "hack". Nor, would I say, do Hamman, Wolff, and Swanson.

[andrei]

hanp, on Oct 17 2009, 03:05 PM, said:

It is a bit more unethical to delay when you switch to a doubleton so that partner can read it. It is even more unethical to complain to partner afterwards when partner has smoothly switched to a doubleton, "you played it smoothly, how am I supposed to know you that don't have a singleton!".

OMG!!!

I can't believe any non-beginer bridge player would say something like this, let alone a world class player.

[jdonn]

hanp, on Oct 18 2009, 04:52 AM, said:

I don't like how you equate (what I consider) cheating and (what you consider) impoliteness. You can put both under the header of "unethical behavior", but they are very different.

I believe the underlying source of many of my prior disagreements with Cascade, and I suspect he would even agree with me that this is the case, is that he sees the world in very black and white terms and I (and apparently you) see lots of shades of gray. So he will say "Hamman did something that is against the rules and as such is cheating" and we will say something more like "Hamman did something that is considered normal and even expected behavior in that particular game and that his opponents also engage in". Gnasher to his credit actually seems to acknowledge both viewpoints.

It's like that discussion we had over 'unwritten rules'. It took me long enough but I finally realized is a totally futile discussion to have. Changing a mind then or now involves someone on either side changing the way they see the world, and good luck with that.

[fred]

The_Hog, on Oct 18 2009, 01:56 AM, said:

So you dismiss Peter Gill's comments as well? Interesting! Peter is one of the most astute students of the game that I know.

I actually thought Peter's comments were excellent. Here are some of the differences between Peter and you:

- Despite having considerable "bridge credibility" (unlike you), Peter has the humility to say things like "I think" and "I feel inclined" whereas you speak as if everything you think were a FACT. You have zero humility.

- Peter, despite being "one of the most astute students of the game" (your words, but I happen to know Peter and I happen to agree with you here) would like to find the time one day to study the matter further and left open the possibility that he might learn something. You, who I very much doubt is "one of the most astute students of the game", talks as if he has nothing to learn about anything.

- I have no doubt that Peter, regardless of what he might think of Bobby Wolff personally, would give his bridge analysis and experience the respect it deserves.

- I don't know anything about how well you play bridge, but I think it is likely that Peter is a MUCH better player than you will ever be.

- Peter wisely would "prefer not to say" publicly what his opinions of cheating cases are. You seem to delight in publicly stating as FACT the laughably stupid allegation that Alan Sontag is a cheater.

To summarize, even if you and Peter had the same opinions (it sounds like you don't), it is your style that I object to, not your opinions (which you are certainly entitled to of course).

For all you know, I might even agree with your opinions since I have not stated my opinions.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[nige1]

Jlall, on Oct 18 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

I agree there are those who bend over backwards when they have UI to not use it, this is how I was taught and I think my personal hero Bob Hamman is the best at this and I'm happy I got to learn a sense of his ethics, but in my experience this is far and away the exception not the rule.

Cascade, on Oct 18 2009, 01:06 AM, said:

It is interesting that you say this as this is not the impression that I got of Bob Hamman from reading his own book.  Where he seems to admit to engaging in unethical conduct.

Bob Hamman, on At the Table, said:

"Ron could have called the director and sought a conduct penalty against me.  But it would have been like admitting he couldn't take the needle. He had been dishing it out, and to call the director would have been psychological surrender.  It would have signaled that he couldn't take it.  He would have won the battle but lost the war.
The point is that in the main event of any competitive endeavor, you had best be prepared to play hard ball - literally in some arenas, figuratively in others.  You wouldn't be surprised to get a thumb in the eye on the first play from scrimmage in the Super Bowl - or an elbow in the jaw in the NBA final.  Well bridge is no different.
Nobody's going to punch or kick you, but the other guy is there to beat you - period.  It's fierce competition, not a social situation. The politeness police are not part of the scene.  In many settings, such as a local duplicate club, I don't beat up on my opponents because most of them are pleasure players and they are not really challenging me.  When I'm in a major event like the Spingold, however, I don't ask for quarter and I don't give it."

Cascade, on Oct 18 2009, 01:06 AM, said:

I don't find the things that Hamman advocates to be what I would consider fair play - beating up on opponents, not being polite.

hanp, on Oct 18 2009, 04:52 AM, said:

I don't like how you equate (what I consider) cheating and (what you consider) impoliteness. You can put both under the header of "unethical behavior", but they are very different.

gnasher, on Oct 18 2009, 06:38 AM, said:

Discourtesy to an opponent is against the rules.  Knowingly breaking the rules in order to gain an advantage is cheating, isn't it?  It may not be the same sort of cheating as leading a singleton diagonally, but it's still cheating.  Most of the discourtesy we encounter at the bridge table isn't cheating, of course.  If you're unpleasant to an opponent because you're annoyed or you don't like him, that's just a breach of the rules.

I agree with Gnasher (if, exceptionally, I understand him correctly): IMO: what Hammand did is blatantly unethical and against the law. Deliberately and knowingly breaking the law to gain advantage is cheating. Obviously Hamman doesn't think he is deliberately breaking the law, however, or he wouldn't advertise this as a mild example of "hardball". He doesn't even seem to realise that what he was doing is illegal. Hence, he didn't call the director to report his own infraction (as he is legally obliged to do). It substantiates Trinidad's claim that many who break the law aren't cheating.

If Jlall is right that top experts collude with their partners to deliberately break unauthorised information laws, then they are cheating and it is a far more serious matter.

To anticipate a knee-jerk reaction: Please note this isn't America-Bashing. It's just that Americans write excellent autobiographies that are more honest and frank than those of Europeans. We have an unhealthy obsession with secrecy and libel

[gnasher]

I'm not an expert, but I believe that the Proprieties used not to be part of the Laws. I don't know when that changed, or when the incident referred to in Hamman's autobiography occurred, but it may well be that at the time it was entirely legal to be obnoxious.

[fred]

hrothgar, on Oct 18 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

fred, on Oct 18 2009, 04:49 AM, said:

6) Seems to be suggesting that Cathy Chua (who I am sure is a wonderful person, a fine bridge player, and does excellent research concerning events she was not involved in) is more qualified to speak of these matters than people like Bobby Wolff, Bob Hamman, and John Swanson (who were very much involved in these events and who probably know a little more about bridge than Cathy Chua).

Fred:

The obvious rejoinder to comments like this is: Bob Hamman, Bobby Wolff, and John Swanson were never able to beat the Blue Team. How can we expect these players to be qualified to comment about a level of play that they - obviously - are incapable of understanding.

Please note: I am NOT making this argument. In general, I think that the merits any argument should be evaluated based on factual basis; not based on who is advancing the claim.

I definitely feel that there are exceptions to this rule. There are plenty of people and groups who I don't think deal in these types of discussions in good faith. (In these cases, I think that its entirely appropriate to shoot the messenger).

I don't think that Chua falls in this category of "hack". Nor, would I say, do Hamman, Wolff, and Swanson.

By and large I agree with you, Richard.

But to me the fact that 3 such accomplished and experienced players are willing to come out and say what they have said in print in itself is potentially significant. Bridge players are not above "sour grapes", but I think it would be highly unusual for multiple bridge books by multiple first-time authors (and A1 players) to be inspired by nothing more than (ancient) sour grapes. It is also highly unusual for unproven cheating allegations to appear in multiple bridge books. It is a safe bet that the people who wrote these books knew that what they were writing would have consequences and that they would have given this matter long and hard thought before being willling to go public with their allegations. They are smart guys who would have been smart to ask themselves "looking back after all those years, could I still be suffering from sour grapes?".

Since I have opinions of the respective characters of the people who wrote these respective books (the specifics of which I will not speak of here) that certainly colors my personal opinion of just how seriously their respective allegations should be taken.

I am not saying that I agree with these allegations and even if I agreed completely, I would not be willing to post my own unproven cheating allegations on the Internet (or to write a book about it for that matter).

What I am saying is, the fact that these public allegations even exist, suggests to me that they are worthy of consideration (ie not simply dismissed due to the sour grapes theory) by anyone who wants to try to get to the truth of this matter.

If this is just a matter of sour grapes then that would be a terrible injustice to the Blue Team (a team that certainly contained 3 of the greatest bridge players ever and whose remarkable record, which I hope was achieved honestly, will likely never be equalled).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com