Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John D'Errico
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He knows the truth. Sounds like bridge has its own x-files.
Oct. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Note that I am NOT someone who will fervently argue on behalf of those accused of cheating. For example, I am quite convinced that F-N and F-S cheated, and dd so blatantly. I would like to see clear evidence, some of which is starting to come out for other pairs.

However, gut feel is simply not enough evidence for me to convict someone. My gut has been wrong before, and while I tend to trust it, where the gut is concerned, I follow the policy of trust, but verify.

You THINK you were cheated, but you have only weak circumstantial evidence to back up that statement. There are other reasons for what happened that you seem to be excluding for no good reason.
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. Sorry, but I don't trust your gut. The fact is, you have no idea what the smirk was based on, and only a foggy recollection of the hand itself.

For example, perhaps you flashed your hand to this opponent, completely without realizing that you did it. I recall once in a team game when our opponent made a contract by a play that was insane on the face of it. As he was walking away, I heard him comment to his partner why. My partner apparently flashed his hand to this fellow. He knew where the important cards were.

Is an opponent cheating when you tell him what you have? Is it unethical to take advantage of such information? Yes. But that does not mean they stacked the deck, only that you may have been foolish and gave them information, of which they took advantage.

You know only that there was a smirk.
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The fact is, you seem to be slightly fuzzy on the details. Only now do we learn that it happened early in the hand. You did not write down the hand. So we have no evidence except your claim that you were cheated.

On the other hand, it is pretty easy to construct a hand where declarer might decide early in the hand that it was necessary to take an early finesse, that at first glance, might seem non-standard. I was kibbing a hand the other day, where I my telepathy was screaming for declarer to do exactly that. And that non-standard finesse actually had a great deal of logic behind it. Declarer did not read my mind however, and misplayed the hand (in my opinion.)

Or I can give the example of how, in my very early days, I held AJTxxx in clubs in dummy, I decided for some obscure reason, that my RHO held the king, and I had the Q9 doubleton in hand. So I cashed the ace, smoothly playing the queen under it. Then I led a low club from dummy. East did indeed hold the king, and since it appeared that I was going to ruff, she ducked the trick. When the 9 won, I looked at her with a sheepish smile (we were friends, and got to be better friends after this hand) and we both broke out laughing. I was certainly not cheating. My smile was an indication that I got away with stealing a trick, and doing so legally.

The point is, there MAY have been something happening here that you missed. There MAY have been cheating involved. We have no evidence of cheating, except your feeling. Why did declarer play as they did? The gut is not always right, and one event is not sufficient evidence, especially when you cannot provide any details beyond your apparently foggy memory on this point.

I totally agree with the utility of pre-dealt hands. They solve many problems beyond just cheating, such as the inequities between matches. If one match was wild hands, and another entirely flat hands, the teams in that second match have little opportunity to make up ground in a swiss event.

However, even with pre-dealt hands, there will still be cheaters who will find a way. And shuffle and shift schemes, while they may reduce the probability of cheating, cannot eliminate it. You might have collusion between friends for example.
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
NO. I see only evidence that he is not completely clear about what happened. That post is the first place where he makes any statement about even when in the play that it happened. That post also makes it very clear that it is a bit lost in the fog. What was the hand? was there perhaps some reason for why declarer did something non-standard? We don't know that, or anything about the hand, only that he THINKS he was cheated. With no information provided beyond his vague statements, there is no real reason to KNOW that he was cheated. Claiming it to be 100% is wildly far from impossible.
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes, he has earned SOME slack. But the plain and simple fact is, I have done EXACTLY the same thing at times in the past. Mostly when I first learned how to run a squeeze. I would no longer do it now, because it is a bit immature. But there need be no cheating involved.

The point is, you run some pretty squeeze, coup, what ever. As it is wrapping up, you are proud of what you did. As you finish the hand, to prove that you knew what you were doing, you claim before the last trick.

This is not evidence of cheating, but merely that the declarer was proud of their achievement, and wanted to show off that skill. It is showboating, not really any different from the football player who spikes the ball after they cross the goal line.

I think all of us have become sensitive to the possibility of being cheated after these last few months. I know that I have become more so. But it is not always the case. One hand like this is not proof at all.

Think about it from declarer's point if view. HAD they done exactly this, cheated, perhaps by inserting a cold deck, they surely would not have given it away on the last trick. But instead, suppose this was the first time that you had intentionally played for some pretty criss-cross squeeze that you knew now was panning out. As it is working at the end, you get a burst of endorphins. A sneaky smile crosses your lips. And the only one at the table who you can show off to is the person who just got squeezed.
Oct. 18, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your claim, that since declarer “knew” you had the queen of some suit, that you were cheated? All this potentially means is the declarer was good enough to know how to count cards, count points, run a squeeze, etc. It means that declarer was showing off to you a bit, but so what? This is not proof of being cheated. Probably just an indication that declarer was decent, AND a smart aleck.

You have not shown the actual hand, nor the bidding. Did the bidding give it away? Did you signals? Was there just a squeeze? Most likely one or more of these things was true.
Oct. 17, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Joel is right on here. Consider pro baseball players, earning many millions of dollars per yesr, yet some will take hormones to hit yet more home runs. Lance Armstrong cheated not just one year, but many years.
Oct. 15, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Gary - well they might do something different, if they follow through on the thinly veiled threats made against those who try to do something about the problem.
Oct. 9, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick - So Lance Armstrong (current estimated net worth 125 million) pr Barry Bonds (current estimated net worth 80 million) will both be asked to give up their fortunes, as they both apparently cheated?

At most there may be lawsuits, from those who paid them income for ill-gotten gains. But those lawsuits may be difficult to win. And not every sponsor will choose to initiate a suit. One would need to prove that they were cheating while you played with them, AND that “you”, as a sponsor who hired them, knew nothing about their ways despite rumors floating around about their bad habits.

That they be expelled immediately is the simplest solution.
Sept. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But except for some specific tournaments, most bridge tourneys don't award monetary rewards. Only the “fame”, AND the ability to tell your next potential sponsor how much your presence is worth, so that they will pay you, or pay you more than before.

So it is the sponsors who are in general the only ones who could insist on repayment, and for that to happen, a lawsuit would surely be necessary. While it might happen in some cases, my guess is it will not. Sad though.
Sept. 26, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They will fit well in the Antarctic, since they always find their “cold” games. Of course, this means they will all need to start playing the Penguin club system.
Sept. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
While part of me wants to agree with what you've said, and this may be true for some cheats, it is surely not true for all. Some of these people would clearly still be world class bridge players had they not cheated, perhaps with a few less wins though.

In fact, to me, it seems more difficult to cheat while playing bridge. You now need to process more information yet but also consider whether using that information will give you away as a cheat.
Sept. 22, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'd suggest poker as a better choice of game for Nick. It seems more consistent with his style of play.
Sept. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
An Interesting comment by Gene about these people moving to rubber bridge. Suppose I were willing to play bridge for real money? Would I be willing to sit down against a known cheat? Not me, but then I've never played for more than a very nominal sum.
Sept. 19, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I've seen this claim before, that with computer bidding, it would be possible to know how much your opponents have hesitated, but NOT your partner.

I'm not sure there is not a problem. Suppose that the software reports that LHO took 5 seconds to bid. It tells you that RHO took 15 seconds to bid. But you know that the bidding did not return to you until after 2 minutes have passed by. Simple subtraction tells you that partner took the lion's share of the time, in this example, roughly 100 seconds.
Aug. 29, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Instead, HAD you explained that people who do toss board hard enough to make significant noise that it bothers others, or who manage to damage boards by so throwing, that this is something to avoid, then you could have made a valid point without insulting the name of someone who does not merit your ire.

However, please don't insult the name of a professional by deciding that he is arrogant based on one word of his.
Aug. 20, 2015
John D'Errico edited this comment Aug. 20, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, those dot matrix printers they used back in the 1870s were REALLY bad.
March 23, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John - Republicans vs Democrats would be fine, except that no hands would ever get played.

Peg - I know we would see women's teams at the top, and that would be great for all and great for bridge here in the US.
March 5, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
MIxed couples? Don't forget to add in a group for those who have had one too many mixed drinks before the session.
March 5, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top