[PhantomSac]

If the ACBL takes the view that they will trust the IBF findings and go with that they may be banned by the ACBL in that case. And the ebl and or wbf would almost certainly bar them as they are not in good standing with their nbo

[blackshoe]

Yes, but if Israel bans them from playing, other NBOs/Zonal Authorities might do the same. As might the WBF.

[MrAce]

For future imo every NBO must be forced to report all convicted cheaters to WBF and EBL. For example Israel may have set the bar for 5th offense to ban for good when it comes to cheating (i am making it up) and that is fine as long as they play in Israel, some other country may set the bar to 3. Most countries that I know may not even allow 2nd chance. All their own business. But WBF-EBL should know it and they should set their bar on their own criteria when it comes to eligibility in international events. As long as NBOs report it, it is easy to prevent a lot of potential risk before the event.
And every NBO, if their player gets caught in any WBF or EBL event should get a mandatory 1 year punishment. If there is negligence than 2+ years.
This way NBOs will feel the necessity to keep an eye on their players much better than they do now.

[Antrax]

 PhantomSac, on 2015-August-30, 23:21, said:

If the ACBL takes the view that they will trust the IBF findings and go with that they may be banned by the ACBL in that case.

In all honesty, if I were the ACBL I wouldn't have done that. It's just too likely the committee will be biased. There were whispers in Hebrew too, which were firmly quashed and accused of blaming someone for something they'd done 10+ years ago when they were young and foolish.

[gnasher]

 PhantomSac, on 2015-August-30, 20:11, said:

The hands themselves are not being used as evidence of cheating AFAIK. His play was normal.

Yes, I know. I did emphasise that I was talking about the play.

Sorry, I just wanted to talk about bridge for a minute.

[MrAce]

I do not think BW is down due to traffic. They may as well be cyber attacked.

[Mbodell]

 Antrax, on 2015-August-31, 00:40, said:

In all honesty, if I were the ACBL I wouldn't have done that. It's just too likely the committee will be biased. There were whispers in Hebrew too, which were firmly quashed and accused of blaming someone for something they'd done 10+ years ago when they were young and foolish.

I think it depends on the verdict. If a home country convicts them, you can just use that (and there was some board motion about banning/suspending foreign players when they were banned by their home country - I think that discussion came up starting around the Norway suspension for reporting on the match that didn't happen). If the home country doesn't convict them, then you may want to convict them yourself (or at least try them yourself). A couple of the famous cheating cases in history had/have the home country of the players denying the cheating.

[PhantomSac]

 gnasher, on 2015-August-31, 02:10, said:

Yes, I know. I did emphasise that I was talking about the play.

Sorry, I just wanted to talk about bridge for a minute.

pfft what were you thinking!

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2015-August-30, 18:17, said:

The line chosen by Lindqvist in the other room looks better; winning the club, ruffing two diamonds and two clubs, and then playing ace and another heart; but he had some bidding from EW. When East won, he was endplayed, and if he is not, you can still find the queen of spades. But then, if you know where the queen of spades is ...

Lindqvist's line works only if clubs are 6-3. If Schwartz had played that line on an uncontested auction, that would have made it onto Boye's shortlist.

Without any help from the bidding, you might play something like Lindqvist's line, but taking a trump finesse instead of playing ace and another: ♣A, ♦ ruff, ♣ ruff, ♦A, ♦ ruff, ♣ ruff, trump finesse. If that loses to a singleton king, he's endplayed; otherwise you still have your other chances.

Quote

And nobody seems to have commented on the jump to 6S on board 4, which looks far too optimistic to me, unless you somehow know it is cold.

Someone mentioned it on Bridgewinners.


This is xxx KJ x AKJ9xxx after (4♦) 4♠ (5♦) at Game All - Fischer bid 6♠. I think it's reasonable to bid slam, but I would try 6♣ instead of 6♠, on the grounds that a club finesse is more likely to work than a spade finesse.

It's yet another example of their getting a guess right that they couldn't always get right, but it's nothing compared with the famous Dublin 2012 set.

[mgoetze]

 MrAce, on 2015-August-30, 21:44, said:

I loved the previous one. At least it was asking a suit combination about how to take 4 tricks. I am still trying to solve it...

The secret is to draw trump first...

[rhm]

 PhantomSac, on 2015-August-30, 15:09, said:

Are you serious? You didn't watch the videos very well.

Louk showed Lotan his hand on board 1 before dummy came down. So that is how Lotan knew that he had a stiff trump. That is on video and not disputable, whether he signalled Ron or not is unclear but Lotan knew Louks trump holding.

True.
But maybe there is a simpler explanation.
I think running the ♦T was percentage.
The odds change when a good player leads the ♣A against this bidding.
Opening leader knew declarer had clubs and he had no indication that a solid spade suit would come down in dummy. In fact it was unlikely given that Fisher did not bid the cold 6♠.
At Imps the lead is suspicious. As declarer I would have bet that trumps do not break.
And Schwartz thought about this before making the crucial play.

In my opinion it is a courageous and world-class play.

But if the accusers can come up only with such hands as evidence including some where they themselves made the same lead (heart lead from Kxx) after equivalent bidding sequences I remain unconvinced.
It is a joke to even mention such boards as evidence.
The problem I have with Brogeland is, that all this surfaced after his team was eliminated after a contentious appeals decision for his former team mates Fischer-Schwartz.
He seems to have been very upset when he launched his campaign. This does not prove that his allegations are wrong, but his motives are dubious to me.

For example on bridgecheaters Thomas Bessis complains that Fisher passed against him a 20-22 2NT rebid with J653, 94, QJ82, 1042 in an IMPs tournament (Cavendish) and claimed no world-class player would pass, knowing they have 24-26 HCP.

With all respect it shows his bias.
The odds change when one hand is very weak and 20 balanced points are much more frequent than 22. You are more likely to hold 20 HCP than 21-22 HCP combined.
I deem Pass good bridge because I believe 9 tricks will not be available 40% of the time and Fisher was right.
I do not care what the world-class field did with this hand. For the record they all went down in 3NT.
If you mimic the field you will never win such tournaments.

Note, I am not claiming Fisher - Schwartz are clean, I simply do not know.
I want evidence.
This is not evidence.

Rainer Herrmann

[nullve]

 rhm, on 2015-August-31, 03:26, said:

on bridgecheaters Thomas Bessis complains that Fisher passed against him a 20-22 2NT rebid with J653, 94, QJ82, 1042 in an IMPs tournament (Cavendish) and claimed no world-class player would pass, knowing they have 24-26 HCP.

Maybe Fisher had read this:

http://bridge.thomas....html#z_hcp_121

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2015-August-31, 02:31, said:

Lindqvist's line works only if clubs are 6-3. If Schwartz had played that line on an uncontested auction, that would have made it onto Boye's shortlist.

Without any help from the bidding, you might play something like Lindqvist's line, but taking a trump finesse instead of playing ace and another: ♣A, ♦ ruff, ♣ ruff, ♦A, ♦ ruff, ♣ ruff, trump finesse. If that loses to a singleton king, he's endplayed; otherwise you still have your other chances.


Someone mentioned it on Bridgewinners.


This is xxx KJ x AKJ9xxx after (4♦) 4♠ (5♦) at Game All - Fischer bid 6♠. I think it's reasonable to bid slam, but I would try 6♣ instead of 6♠, on the grounds that a club finesse is more likely to work than a spade finesse.

It's yet another example of their getting a guess right that they couldn't always get right, but it's nothing compared with the famous Dublin 2012 set.

I agree on the first part, although it does look like the leader has QT7 of clubs or he is false-carding several times. My comparison was poor as clubs were bid in the other room, and your line is better.

On the second hand, a simulation suggests that 6C and 6S are against the odds, at around 41% and 38% respectively. Also they were already well ahead in the match, even by board 4. In addition, at 36:20 on the video, Schwartz folds his cards and crimps the corner slightly. If you try that with 13 cards you will hear a slight noise. A potential code is that this shows a void. If you knew the oppo diamonds were 8-4, the slam would be over 80% as you can often afford a trump loser. I could find no repeat of this crimping in the video.

[rhm]

 nullve, on 2015-August-31, 03:48, said:

Maybe Fisher had read this:

http://bridge.thomas....html#z_hcp_121

I did a simulation with Fisher hand and 3NT was anti-percentage even red at Imps and even if you cater for declarer's advantage in 3NT, that is the defense will not always find the best lead.

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

 rhm, on 2015-August-31, 03:26, said:

The odds change when a good player leads the ♣A against this bidding.

I disagree. He is equally likely to be worried that the ace of clubs will go away, or even the ace, king of clubs. If it was a guess for the queen of trumps, I might agree with you.

[MrAce]

 rhm, on 2015-August-31, 03:26, said:

True.
But maybe there is a simpler explanation.
I think running the ♦T was percentage.
The odds change when a good player leads the ♣A against this bidding.
Opening leader knew declarer had clubs and he had no indication that a solid spade suit would come down in dummy. In fact it was unlikely given that Fisher did not bid the cold 6♠.
At Imps the lead is suspicious. As declarer I would have bet that trumps do not break.
And Schwartz thought about this before making the crucial play.

In my opinion it is a courageous and world-class play.

But if the accusers can come up only with such hands as evidence including some where they themselves made the same lead (heart lead from Kxx) after equivalent bidding sequences I remain unconvinced.
It is a joke to even mention such boards as evidence.
The problem I have with Brogeland is, that all this surfaced after his team was eliminated after a contentious appeals decision for his former team mates Fischer-Schwartz.
He seems to have been very upset when he launched his campaign. This does not prove that his allegations are wrong, but his motives are dubious to me.

For example on bridgecheaters Thomas Bessis complains that Fisher passed against him a 20-22 2NT rebid with J653, 94, QJ82, 1042 in an IMPs tournament (Cavendish) and claimed no world-class player would pass, knowing they have 24-26 HCP.

With all respect it shows his bias.
The odds change when one hand is very weak and 20 balanced points are much more frequent than 22. You are more likely to hold 20 HCP than 21-22 HCP combined.
I deem Pass good bridge because I believe 9 tricks will not be available 40% of the time and Fisher was right.
I do not care what the world-class field did with this hand. For the record they all went down in 3NT.
If you mimic the field you will never win such tournaments.

Note, I am not claiming Fisher - Schwartz are clean, I simply do not know.
I want evidence.
This is not evidence.

Rainer Herrmann

Rainer, I do not have much tolerance to nonsense and I do not have the skills to reply to your posts line by line and not get banned from BBF at the same time.
But this "look at me I am different than all of you" type of posts are getting old. I would bet my annual income that IF we all said, if entire world class players said that finessing the J just because opening leader cashed the A, you would decorate 3 pages to show why it is nonsense. And you would be right, and you have the patience and language skills that I do not have. This "look at me" approach is not only boring to me, but as Justin said in another site, it is VERY irresponsible too at the same time.

[lamford]

 rhm, on 2015-August-31, 04:08, said:

I did a simulation with Fisher hand and 3NT was anti-percentage even red at Imps and even if you cater for declarer's advantage in 3NT, that is the defense will not always find the best lead.

Rainer Herrmann

I completely agree that passing 2NT is a reasonable action, and, on its own, this example would prove nothing. It is also consistent with knowing partner is minimum.

[MrAce]

When in BW there were people who said "I am not convinced" I wrote something similar to this.

Quote

]Most people who are not at top caliber have the expectation to see "OMG!" or "HOLLY *****" kind of hands. Although I am sure most of them are OMG hands for top players.
And then they are telling themselves "I could have made the same lead, or same bid, or same play"
Which then leads to "If I was on trial, I would be found guilty when I know my innocence, so this should not be enough for conviction" type of thinking.
Which ends up on the forum with saying "I am not convinced"
Don't worry Rainer, you will never be subject to this even if you finessed the ♦J. Each hand can be explained one way or the other. But along with these hands and your ♦J finesse
-If you have the record that says you have been caught multiple times for cheating or attempting to cheat.
-If your peers suspected for about a decade that you are cheating, not 3-5 or 8 of them but 99% of them
-If your lead on this hand is not a logical lead, and you have been making this type of leads frequently and almost always hitting the gold.
-If you are playing unbelievable imp average in an event in which even the 3 times winner of that event could not even come up anywhere close to this average.
-If you are not having any success whatsoever with another partner, while you win almost everything that is on your path with only and only 1 pd.
-If you know to pass through out the auction with 8 cards solid suit AKQJxxx ♦ and leaving opponents to 4♥ and catch a 4 card loaded ♥ with your pd.
-If you are playing support pass at 5 level (lol, i am still laughing on that)
-If your opponents have lost many matches and many titles before but have never accused others, never gave up their titles before but you still think they are sore losers just because they stood up against you
-If you claim 3 times at top level, 3 of them being wrong claims and got away with one of them and won the match by 1 imp

If someone is still incapable of making his/her mind on this, then there is no need to try to convince. After all people can be protected from themselves only for so long.

[rhm]

 lamford, on 2015-August-31, 04:09, said:

I disagree. He is equally likely to be worried that the ace of clubs will go away, or even the ace, king of clubs. If it was a guess for the queen of trumps, I might agree with you.

On what is declarer's side suit likely to go away, on what are dummies clubs? I repeat the solid spade suit in dummy is a big surprise.
This is not matchpoints nor board-a-match.
This is IMPs where you do not care much about overtricks when you are defending a minor suit slam.
When you lead an ace in declarer's side suit you have to balance the chance that this is the only lead to beat the contract against the odds that this will help declarer to make his contract.

At this level playing well is not good enough.
Bridge has poker elements.
You have to put yourself in the minds of your opponents (and often partner) to come to the right decisions.

Ask yourself:
When are you more likely to lead the ace in declarers side suit against a slam?
When you have high hopes for another trick in trumps or when not?

This is game theory.
I think the Dutch opening leader was naive when he let the ace of clubs.

A priori the trump finesse is 50% and a 3-2 break 68%.
After the lead I believe these probabilities have changed.
I would run the ♦T and I sometimes look stupid.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

 MrAce, on 2015-August-31, 04:31, said:

Rainer, I do not have much tolerance to nonsense and I do not have the skills to reply to your posts line by line and not get banned from BBF at the same time.
But this "look at me I am different than all of you" type of posts are getting old. I would bet my annual income that IF we all said, if entire world class players said that finessing the J just because opening leader cashed the A, you would decorate 3 pages to show why it is nonsense. And you would be right, and you have the patience and language skills that I do not have. This "look at me" approach is not only boring to me, but as Justin said in another site, it is VERY irresponsible too at the same time.

I gave Bridge arguments, nothing else.
And what did you do?
You replied with personal insults.

I am of course aware that Fisher Schwartz do not have a good image.
I remember that I found half a year ago their reasons for not playing for Israel in the next Bermuda Bowl strange.
But let me tell:
Bridge is a very competitive game.
I have never played at the top level for whatever reasons.
But more than once I have been targeted for accusations.
This always seem to happen, when you are not well established and you have good results.
When you have good results and are not established as a great player the first reaction is envy and rumors.
The last time this happened was a couple of weeks ago on BBO.
I played with a lady who considers herself intermediate against two so called experts:

---

I was the 7♣ bidder after the ace ask of my intermediate partner.
I took a risk, but I also knew my partner would never consider more than a small slam.
Of course there was nothing to the play and the so called experts got a bad result.
Accusations immediately started and when I called the TD he claimed that I had to agree my 7♣ bid was dubious.
Welcome to the real world of Bridge.

Rainer Herrmann