Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Avon Wilsmore
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From “Under the Table”:

Forquet and partner played the Neapolitan system from 1957 to 1964: Strong club, canapé, 12-17 1NT (always having 4+ clubs) and 2 natural. Forquet and Garozzo’s Neapolitan became Blue Team Club in 1965; the changes mostly affected the 1NT opening. See Forquet and Bianchi’s NT Phobia, for more detail.

Neapolitan/Blue Club varied its 2 opening over time: A conservative Weak Two from 1958-1965, an artificial game-force in 1966 and Roman-style (17-24, 4-4-4-1) from 1967 onwards.



BTW, When I referred to Chiaradia's use of Stayman, it was in partnership with D'Alelio, playing Italian Natural.

From “Under the Table”:

1957 Bermuda Bowl, board 43. N-S vul.
D’Alelio Chiaradia
♠ 10 6 4 2 ♠ A K 3
♥ A J 5 ♥ Q 9 6
♦ A 8 2 ♦ Q 6 5 3
♣ A K 4 ♣ J 10 6
1NT 2♣
2♠ 3NT
There was no Puppet Stayman, no five-card major ask, in 1957.
Chiaradia used Stayman for no apparent reason. There is no
sign he understood that feeding strong defenders information
about declarer’s hand can be costly.
1958 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 163. N-S vul.
D’Alelio Chiaradia
♠ A 10 ♠ Q J 6
♥ Q 8 2 ♥ K J 10
♦ K J 8 3 ♦ A 7 2
♣ A Q 10 6 ♣ 9 8 7 4
D’Alelio Chiaradia
1NT 2♣
2 3NT
There he goes again, helping the defenders to an
early count, with no upside.
1957 Bermuda Bowl, board 38. N-S vul.
D’Alelio Chiaradia
♠ A Q J 5 ♠ K 9 7 4
♥ J 4 2 ♥ K 8 6
♦ A 7 5 ♦ Q 9 4
♣ A 6 3 ♣ Q 8 5
D’Alelio Chiaradia
1NT 2♣
2♠ 3NT
What was going on here? Why seek a four-four spade fit if
one will decline to play in it? One possibility is that
Chiaradia literally had no idea of what Stayman was about.
Another is that, mid-auction, D’Alelio sent a "I have a 4=3=3=3"
signal. Was such a signal in use? We’ll have to wait for the
release of the Burgay Tape to find out.
Sept. 25
Avon Wilsmore edited this comment Sept. 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Once again I issue the correction: Chiaradia-D'Alelio played Italian Natural in 1957 and 1958. Italian Natural was very basic indeed - about equal to 1940s Goren.


From:
https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-reply-to-david-yates-articles/

Chiaradia was the inventor of Neapolitan* (played by Forquet-Siniscalco, 1957-1959 and Forquet-Garozzo 1961-1964), so you'd think he'd be very keen to play his own system in a world championship. If there was a reason to stick to Italian Natural, it had to be D'Alelio. It is my opinion that Neapolitan (a simple canapé strong-club system) was too hard for D'Alelio to understand. It took two years for him work it out, and he was ready in 1959 - he and Chiaradia were officially playing Neapolitan.

Almost.

In fact, D'Alelio played no boards in the qualifying or final against the USA. The documented reason given is that he was unwell… but not so unwell that he could not play 7 out of 9 sets against Argentina. I think it is possible that Perroux did not want D'Alelio playing a system with which he was struggling, against competent opponents.

Is there supporting evidence for the view that D'Alelio was unable to easily grasp a new simple bidding system?

Yes.

In late 1971, The Blue Team played a challenge match against the Dallas Aces. The Blue Team had been paid to adopt Chung Ching Wei's Precision system. Forquet-Garozzo and Avarelli-Belladonna played basic Precision… while D'Alelio had to stick to Little Roman, the system he had used from 1964 onwards.

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

* Chiaradia started work on Neapolitan around 1942. After 15 years of work, he was ready to display the magnificence of the 12-17 1NT opening, always 3-3-2-5.

Rome wasn't built in a day.



1In my view, Chiaradia and D'Alelio were players of modest skills indeed. Chiaradia didn't even know how Stayman worked.
Sept. 24
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are in a 4-4 fit.

Not the time to propose tapping-off both hands, in my view.

Further, see the comment below about the danger of ruffing with big trumps.
Sept. 21
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are on the right track… if/when I dig up sufficient information, I will write an article about this matter.

To nit-pick, I used “secret service” in a more general sense, rather than referring specifically to the US Secret Service.

From wikipedia:
A secret service is a government agency, intelligence agency, or the activities of a government agency…

Meanwhile, I think the CIA is as likely to release its file on Smilde as the WBF is to release a copy of the Burgay Tape.
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Meanwhile, Sartaj Hans wrote here:
http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/slap-in-the-face/

The WBF President said words to the effect - Per other Olympic sports, only the titles won post the date when the athlete was proven to be cheating can be stripped. We have followed this in bridge. So all the pre-2014 results are retained as valid.

This is nutty beyond words. How many bridge cheats are playing *after* they have been found to be cheating?

Meanwhile, in this article, we see that regulations can be ignored after “representation” and “expressing views”.


Sartaj wrote:

In 2011, an Australian team lost the finals of the World Transnationals to a team from Israel.

Some of the hands from the match have been documented here.

Lotan Fischer and Ron Schwartz are clear convicted cheats.


So if that Australian team “expresses its views” and “makes a representation”, will they be declared the winners?
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, Roelof Smilde, 1964 Olympiad.

He was a vigorous anti-Vietnam war opponent and his visa to the US was refused. Some Big Names in Australia used their influence and his visa was granted.

And when he got to NYC, the trouble started…
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hint two: The player concerned was Australian
Sept. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here is Nicolas's site: http://www.cheatinginbridge.com/

I have read his book. He names players that his analysis identifies as cheats; these are the same players as were “outed” by Brogeland.

There are many instances of “a European pair” and “an American pair”. If I understand correctly, his methodology identifies these as cheating pairs.

There is nothing “suggestive” about it, and I very much doubt that “good faith” would save Nicolas from lawsuits, should he name those pairs.

I think it's important appreciate the gross self-entitlement and amorality of the socio/psychopaths… that they knew they were guilty would not stop them from suing for defamation.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It's not as simple as “people drawing their own conclusions”.

http://bridgecheaters.com/?page_id=339

We see there that demands were made for Brogeland to pay Fisher-Schwartz US$1m. The fact is, whistleblowers are taking a risk.

We have seen Fantoni-Nunes and Elinescu-Wladow successfully take legal action, even though no sane bridgeplayer could examine the evidence and find them innocent.

Dishonest bridgeplayers and well-paid lawyers are a formidable force. If Nicolas were to state that x, y and z were cheating pairs based upon some analysis of data, it is entirely possible he would end up in court.

That said, I have made it plain in writing that I believe all “classic” Blue Team players were using illicit signals. No word from Forquet, Garozzo, Siniscalco, FIGB or the WBF.

Funny, that.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think that, for better or worse, Nicolas followed the advice of his lawyers…
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Dr Google says…

https://www.amazon.co.uk/BUSTER-KEATON-HIMSELF-BRIDGE-PLAYER/dp/B00817Z5W2

https://timelesshollywood.wordpress.com/2014/10/18/the-great-stone-face-buster-keaton/
He was even a world class bridge player.

From the book, “Buster Keaton Interviews”, p234:
He is an avid bridgeplayer…

From “Buster Keaton: The Persistence of Comedy”:
When he set out to learn bridge he became a champion bridgeplayer

www.busterkeaton.org/Eleanor
But Eleanor Norris had a secret desire. She was determined to learn to play bridge. Although she knew nothing of his silent movie career, she had been told that Buster Keaton sure did know how to play bridge. So she went over to his house to learn the game.

www.moviejawn.com/home/2018/11/8/the-great-buster
…Buster Keaton was in fact an amazing bridge player…
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not close.

Hint: It is possible (and I am researching this matter) that the host country's secret service attempted to murder the player concerned.
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Trivia Time:

Who was the first player, who was a member of his country's official representative team, to be refused a visa for entry into the country hosting the world championship?
Sept. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, a heart return is awkward… the “Hx” play.

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/on-hx-and-benitos-secret/
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Meanwhile, ancient fossils such as I recall green tablecloths… that is why I have never gone wrong when looking at a BW hand diagram.
Sept. 13
Avon Wilsmore edited this comment Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick is 100% right; the WBF has engaged in many cover-ups and has zero interest in outing cheats or rescinding titles.

WBF President Ortiz-Patino, while conducting a faux hearing into Facchini-Zucchelli, spoke to Bobby Wolff about “minimizing the scandal”… shortly after, all the evidence against F-Z vanished, never to be seen again (like the Burgay Tape and the Gerber Letter).

Even the board numbers where Keidan observed foot-tapping have been kept secret.


I am aware that there are people who find what I write about Blue Team days to be dull and repetitive. Well, the authorities hate vocal protests. They hate the spotlight, they hate having their dishonesty exposed, they hate being called to account.

For that reason, I'm not going to stop, and I hope there are many more shocking articles like Sartaj's and many more informed comments like Nick's.

Maybe, post-Boye, if a large number of people had buttonholed their friendly local WBF rep and demanded both answers and action, or thousands of people had flooded the inbox of the WBF Secretary (who has NEVER replied to one of my emails) and other WBF officials, maybe we would have seen some change.

It is my opinion that until life is made uncomfortable for the WBF officials, they will be content with slogans that that stood them in good stead since 1958:

- Don't rock the boat
- Business as usual
- Minimize the scandal
Sept. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You are correct that it's a tricky area…

A vague early thought is that leading the highest card should be a “don't ruff” signal.
Sept. 12
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am away from my library, so I am writing from (possibly-inaccurate) memory.

In Kelsey's “More Killing Defence at Bridge”, every second chapter is on discards. If I recall correctly, he covers the subject of pseudo-squeezes.

Of course, in his earlier work (“Killing Defence at Bridge”), every second chapter is on counting, so you are correct to be working on that topic.
Sept. 10
.

Bottom Home Top