Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Oleg Rubinchik
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Surely, East couldn't have been contemplating bidding anything”

Really?
East holding AQ cannot think about lead-directional double if 3 bid would be explained as spades?!

I genuinely shocked about suggestion what he done something improper.
April 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Ask questions about the auction only when you might take action” or “ask about EVERY bid,” seems like false dichotomy.
How about ask any ALERTED bid?
April 27, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The same for me. is the first choice, is second. In matchpoints I can choose one or another, in IMPs only the first one.
April 26, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is true, accept one moment - human nature. If a person like to shortcut in a game to get easy success, it is unlikely he is doing it in the game only. Article is about chess player who cheated in chess and got arrested for cheating in a real life aside of chess. As they wrote “sooner or later everyone gets what they deserve, even in the most unexpected way.”
April 7, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is situation for agreement, not for judgment.
March 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I hate the situation and certainly dislike the procedure.
But I have to admit: Case against BZ is extremely strong.
March 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
According the original post “you have the agreement that 2C followed by a XX is your way to show a very weak 3 suiters short in clubs”
Nobody can have an agreement that 2 bid is just “Natural” and had an agreement that XX shows weak 3 suiters at the same time.
March 20, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No. With 1 trick North bid double and South will pass if his original pass was with 2 tricks or bid 2s if with 0 tricks
March 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Fact that player forgot the system does not cancel his duty to provide opponents with complete information about his system. He failed to fulfill that obligation.
March 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
pass
March 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I found the following agreement useful.
I opponents bid slam and we have known suit to make a save:
Pass shows 0 or 2+ tricks on defense
Dbl shows 1 trick on defense.

If NS had that agreement both players would pass at this board.
If, for example, South had only 1 trick on defense, he would double and North with 0 tricks would bid 6
March 17, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I got very similar board some time ago. I passed and we lost 4 IMPs (250 against 400 from another table). My partner and I were discussing that board outside, and, probably the most hated on that site, but nevertheless bridge player with outstanding skills, was smoking next to us. “Do you want my advice?” asked he. Sure, we did.
“Forget about that board,” he said. “No bidding agreements could take care of boards like that. You cannot learn anything useful discussing those exceptional cases. They are not what affect your results on the long run.”
March 16, 2017
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.
I am trying to make sure, if I understand it correctly.
We seeing the proof of cheating by BZ in a lead made 26 years ago by a member of Brazilian team against teammates of BZ?

To make it even more fun, for the best of my knowledge, BZ so far been no accused in showing leads to each other: one accusation was in showing relative strength during the bidding, another in showing distribution after lead was made.
By the way, person on lead was Marcelo Branco played with Gabriel Chagas.
I will not comment anymore - all that story gone way beyond the level I can comprehend.
March 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
They clearly made an adjustment for playing with BZ. Did ACBL (or any other authority) already formally recognized them as cheaters?
March 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the team Bell playing in Vanderbilt if I am not mistaken.
March 13, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Max,
Basically I agree with you in each point, but just want to notice that even if public accusation for pair accused before makes iless damage to them because their reputation already ruined, it has a potential to bring more, not less, damage to the rest of bridge community.
At first it demonstrates to authorities that public will not accept non-guilty verdict, that will bias future official investigations.
Second, … well… If I were lawyer of BZ the defamation case would be already on its way to court. No civil Judge would look at videos, they will look at public accusation, official verdict and following second public accusation. I don't want the site and some active people who writes here to get in trouble.
March 11, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Marek,
Yes, I made a screenshot for each and every gestures I described above. Would you like me to update post with information about which part of the hand used in each case? Any other information you need to predict the distribution?
March 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As for me, I would feel like person who helped to make honest and not-biased investigation.
As of now, I don’t think that video as a proof even it was not manipulated. Investigation of gaps between bids was much stronger evidence for my opinion and even it left some room for doubts.
If all question will be adequately addressed, research will prove the hypothesis, and independent official Committee will finds it to be sufficient proof of cheating I will have no problem with it at all. Actually, I will by happier than I am now, because current status of the situation is a worst of both worlds.
March 10, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
44:13 B (dummy) covers his face by left hand starting from left side
44:38 B rubs his face and forehead with right hand
44:53 B cleans nose
45:03 B has both hands under the table
45:13 Z (declarer) scratches nose
45:32 B cleans nose with left hand again
45:49 B rubs left side of his face with right hand
45:51 Z make 5-fingers gesture
46:29 Z make 5-fingers gesture again
46:40 another 5-fingers gesture from declarer
46:44 Z robs back of his head
46:47 B robs right ear by right hand
46:49 B puts his right fist next to his cheek.
47:15 Z playing with played card by pointing 1 finger on it
47:29 B covers his face with right hand than clean his eyes and scratch the right cheek
47:46 Nose by B. again.
48:25 Declarer play is over.

Hi Nicolas.
Could you please re-watch that 4 minutes video one more time, check if reported by me gestures existed and compare your list and my list.

Would you notice and report all those gestures if they happened during declarer play and fit well with hypothesis?
(Just to make it clear. I am not implying any personal agenda on your side and not questioning your honesty and willingness to find trues. I am just pointing out that our investigation is strongly affected by confirmation bias).
March 10, 2017
.

Bottom Home Top