Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Avon Wilsmore
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The old line about American paranoia being behind cheating accusations/scandals has been long discredited.

- 1954, Figeac and Bodier banned from playing; internal inquiry in France

- 1957, Schneider (2nd 1954 BB) & Reithoffer (President, Austrian Bridge Fed.) “encouraged” to retire from bridge by Ortiz-Patino - signalling

- 1961, Bourchtoff & Delmouly (Olympiad champions) banned by French Bridge Fed.from playing in '61 BB, for signalling,

- 1963, John Gerber, capt of US BB team in Italy is handed a letter that documents the cheating methods of the Blue Team. The letter is in Italian; JG refuses to listen past 1st para and hands letter to Italian captain. Perroux reads it to his team; no doubt Garozzo & Forquet will be happy to tell us what it said.

- 1971, Jais & Trezel have their “exotic” opening leads and switches called out in advance by a Brazilian player as they play on VG at the BB

1974, Manoppo brothers banned after WBF enquiry into actions at a Far East championship

1976, Leandro Burgay tapes Benito Bianchi discussing Blue Team signalling methods

2005, Lanzarotti & Buratti banned at European Championships
Jan. 5, 2014
Avon Wilsmore edited this comment Jan. 25, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So, there are two books that discuss the K-C hands.

Kleinman's Bridge Scandal in Houston (4th ed, 146 pages) covers the bidding and play of every hand and has fascinating material on the ACBL actions/law suit and discussions of third-party analysis of K-C's actions. The book was long out of print but the new edition is available:
dannyk13@ca.rr.com

Anyone who wants to read another amazing ACBL “how to turn a cheating accusation into a complete disaster” story can check out Cameroon French's extraordinary account of the 1979 Sion-Cokin affair:
http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/2008/04/06/collateral-damage-i/
Dec. 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
There aren't enough groupies.
Dec. 27, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr Bloom:
I think your recollection of the Katz-Cohen book is mistaken.

Bridge Scandal in Houston (1978, 4th ed, 2005) was written by one author, Danny Kleinman.

I think the hand to which you refer is board 6:
AQ983 A102 64 987
where Katz overcalls 1 (as does Hamman) at unfav after:
pass, 1 ?

Mr Kleinman calls this “dangerous but consistent with his
aggressive style”. Like you, I regard 1 as 100% normal.

But Mr Kleinman (1st ed) certainly agrees with you: K-C played aggressive, good bridge and were not cheating. He compares the logs of coughs and sniffs with K-C's actions and labels them clean. He certainly does not “prove their cheating”; quite the opposite.

At the end of the 4th ed Mr Kleinman writes of his “doubts” (mostly revolving around the settlement) but ends:

“Neither Katz nor Cohen has been candid with me about the mysteries still shrouding the case. What is it they don’t want to say?

And yet … don’t the hand records and the shoddiness of the ACBL’s case still say it, that they didn’t cheat in Houston?”
Dec. 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, I want to find out about how people hold their cards. Had I the ability to have two polls in the same article I would also have asked about observed variation in grip.

Obviously there is a link to the R-S affair but I have less interest in debating their guilt. The Oakie notes from *1960* close the case for me. Anyone who can talk their way around physical evidence like that is a few cards short of a deck, in my view.
Dec. 25, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kelsey and Glauert (Bridge Odds For Practical Players) write at length on this.
Dec. 16, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Tricky! Don't tell anyone, otherwise it might become popular.
Dec. 10, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr Woolsey, could you briefly describe your new signalling agreements?
Dec. 9, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree with all of the above. 2
Dec. 8, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suspect that Mr Ashton, below, is telling us what the “action” was.
Dec. 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Inconceivable? Reminds me of a joke of my father's…

Four Hungarian men had settled in Australia with their wives and liked to catch up for a weekly rubber bridge game. They had agreed to speak in English, to improve their skills. After one hand, there was this conversation:

North: We have bad news from the doctor today. My wife, she can have no children.

East: Ah, so she is unbearable!

South: No, she is impregnable!

West: No, no, she is inconceivable!
Dec. 7, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You beat me to it. Don't do that again!
Nov. 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow. Did the doublers not see the passed hand status?
Nov. 26, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
xx xx K10xxxx xxx

With exactly 8 1/2 playing tricks, 6 is “courageous”.
Nov. 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can hardly play 3 “shows”… you don't want a lead through Kx(x). So, this sequence is an exception to general principles - 3 need show no stopper in any of the opponent's suits.

3 is my first choice, but if really playing with a nonogenarian, there is much to be said for Mr Bethe's “value” call of 5.

Nov. 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can hardly play 3 “shows”… you don't want a lead through Kx(x). And, as Ms Johannesen says, s are partner's business.

So, it is so that this is an exception to general principles - 3 need show no stopper in any of the opponent's suits.
Nov. 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Probably the best-known use of the word “risible”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8_jgiNqUc
Nov. 23, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
On the other hand, Mr Fonzo may have been the 1 bidder, and, thanks to the vote, be dining out on caviar and Krug, paid with the large bet he won.

We may not like the balancer's calls, but let's be courteous and charitable.
Nov. 18, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Why punish poor partner, who hasn't enough for a 1 overcall, for competing? As well, the hand may not play that well, with either a trump lead or diamond over-ruffs proving awkward.

Like Mr Smith, I prefer 2 at this point. Partner will now be in the picture.
Nov. 17, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For a BIG discussion of the '79 scandal:
http://cam.bridgeblogging.com/2008/04/06/collateral-damage-i/
Nov. 16, 2013
.

Bottom Home Top