[TimG]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2009, 02:38 PM, said:

nige1, on Oct 15 2009, 02:23 PM, said:

R-S claimed that most of the press-photographs where posed and anyway they admitted that they didn't hold their cards consistently.

Do you know anyone else ever from anywhere who admits that? And remember this is inconsistent from board to board (and partner to partner!), not day to day.

After reading both books, I wondered whether players always held their cards the same way. I noticed that I did not. But, I knew I was being observed; I was consciousness of the way I held my cards which invalidated the observation (in my opinion). So, I watched the way my partner at the time held her cards. It was not always the same way, either.

In both cases, the variation was much less than that shown by the pictures in Truscott's book. I think you are right that most players hold their cards very nearly the same way from hand to hand, event to event. But, I think there is a small portion of players who generally vary the way they hold their cards in at least minor ways and an even smaller portion of players who may vary their grip significantly (these are mostly those who fidget and they might vary their grip many times during a single hand).

[jdonn]

I think one of the last adjectives anyone would use to describe Reese was "fidgety".

[the hog]

jdonn, on Oct 16 2009, 01:20 AM, said:

athene, on Oct 15 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

The only compelling evidence would the equivalent of a double-blind trial (as used in drugs testing, etc).

i.e.  give ALL the hand records of the competition to a strong bridge player who doesn't know ANY of the surrounding details.

Then ask him: "which of all these pairs playing in this event are signalling length in the heart suit?"

If that player, JUST from the hand records, says "clearly pair X, playing for team Y, are up to something", then there might be a case.

This is 100% wrong, examination of the hands is in fact the LEAST compelling evidence.

This wasn't talking on the phone while playing on BBO, this was a world championship. Reese and Schapiro were great players, they wouldn't take such blatant actions that it would be obvious something was strange. Examining the hands just leads to arguments and counter arguments about what one who was/wasn't cheating may have been thinking when they chose the action.

Instead try this. Simply look at the pictures in Truscott's book. Note how Reese and Schapiro hold the cards (including when playing with someone other than each other.) Then come up with an explanation for how the cards are being held other than cheating in some way.

That is 100% compelling without even considering the hands themselves.

No its not Josh. People have different mannerisms when holding and playing cards. If you wait long enough you can take photos that show anything. I bet if I watched you play for a few sessions I could take enough photos to prove that you cheat.


Fred:
"I mentioned "experienced players" because I suspect most experienced have noticed that:

1) almost all players hold their cards the same way
2) virtually no players dramatically vary the way they hold their cards from hand to hand"

Really? I don't 1) . Many people I know don't as well. A number of people I know do 2)

[Lobowolf]

Is the general consensus on Rex-Taylor (from the "innocent" camp) that he just made up the explanation to get attention?

[jdonn]

I should apologize for saying "insane". It appears nothing more than a serious case of being in denial is adequate to believe they didn't cheat. Ron has now resorted to, ahem, truly compelling arguments!

[Lobowolf]

There's good reason it's "desirable" to maintain an "unvarying manner."

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Oct 15 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

truly compelling arguments!

Reminds me of one of my favorite Dilbert cartoon strips:



Dilbert: Here's a poem I wrote. What do you think?

Dogbert: It's been said that a hundred monkeys typing on a hundred typewriters for a hundred million years would eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespeare.

Dilbert: Yes, but what about MY poem?

Dogbert: Two monkeys, eight minutes.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Oct 16 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

I should apologize for saying "insane". It appears nothing more than a serious case of being in denial is adequate to believe they didn't cheat. Ron has now resorted to, ahem, truly compelling arguments!

Josh, I didn't mean that you cheat, of course I don't believe that, so don't be silly!. I meant that if I observe you for a while I am sure I can get photos which some could easily interpret as evidence of cheating. People see what they want to see, and Truscott comes across as a particularly nasty piece of work.

[the hog]

Lobowolf, on Oct 16 2009, 07:36 AM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 15 2009, 07:34 PM, said:

truly compelling arguments!

Reminds me of one of my favorite Dilbert cartoon strips:



Dilbert: Here's a poem I wrote. What do you think?

Dogbert: It's been said that a hundred monkeys typing on a hundred typewriters for a hundred million years would eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespeare.

Dilbert: Yes, but what about MY poem?

Dogbert: Two monkeys, eight minutes.

I guess in your case it is one monkey and 30 seconds?

[fred]

The_Hog, on Oct 16 2009, 12:25 AM, said:

2) virtually no players dramatically vary the way they hold their cards from hand to hand"

Many people I know don't as well. A number of people I know do 2)

I will take your word for it, Ron, but I very much doubt that any of these "number of players" are anywhere near being among the best players in the world (as Reese and Shapiro clearly were in 1965).

Any top player would find it beyond embarassing to learn that he/she did this and, upon learning so, would certainly take whatever steps were necessary to stop behaving like a moron.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Oct 15 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

jdonn, on Oct 16 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

I should apologize for saying "insane". It appears nothing more than a serious case of being in denial is adequate to believe they didn't cheat. Ron has now resorted to, ahem, truly compelling arguments!

Josh, I didn't mean that you cheat, of course I don't believe that, so don't be silly!. I meant that if I observe you for a while I am sure I can get photos which some could easily interpret as evidence of cheating. People see what they want to see, and Truscott comes across as a particularly nasty piece of work.

Oh don't worry I know you weren't accusing me of anything, I'm saying your argument was a non-argument. On the plus side, your monkey comment was pretty funny, as is the Dilbert quote.

[the hog]

So, holding your cards under the table when playing against someone who is known to slot, or folding up your cards is "behaving like a moron"? Interesting comment!

[Lobowolf]

The_Hog, on Oct 15 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

So, holding your cards under the table when playing against someone who is known to slot, or folding up your cards is "behaving like a moron"? Interesting comment!

Doing it knowing and differently from hand to hand against the same opponents is moronic, at best, and unethical.

My recollection (might be wrong; don't have the book in front of me) is that in The Bridge Bum, Sontag mentions a complaint made by one of his opponents in a major tournament that Sontag folded up his cards on one hand, but didn't always do it. The complaint was that he should do it the same way every time, and Sontag notes in the book that the complainant was correct.

[fred]

The_Hog, on Oct 16 2009, 12:46 AM, said:

So, holding your cards under the table when playing against someone who is known to slot, or folding up your cards is "behaving like a moron"? Interesting comment!

Huh?

Dramatically varying the way one holds one's cards from hand to hand is behaving like a moron.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Oct 15 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

So, holding your cards under the table when playing against someone who is known to slot, or folding up your cards is "behaving like a moron"? Interesting comment!

What does this have to do with anything? That's not what they were doing. What they were doing is, physically, unnatural. Try to hold the cards with your fingers spread wide, or one finger only behind the cards, as the pictures show they did. It's noticeably uncomfortable.

[Lobowolf]

The_Hog, on Oct 15 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

Quote

People see what they want to see

Corrolary: People don't see what they don't want to see.

Quote

Truscott comes across as a particularly nasty piece of work.

In contrast to the cuddly Reese, who was often analogized to a teddy bear.

[Cascade]

Lobowolf, on Oct 16 2009, 01:51 PM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 15 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

So, holding your cards under the table when playing against someone who is known to slot, or folding up your cards is "behaving like a moron"? Interesting comment!

Doing it knowing and differently from hand to hand against the same opponents is moronic, at best, and unethical.

My recollection (might be wrong; don't have the book in front of me) is that in The Bridge Bum, Sontag mentions a complaint made by one of his opponents in a major tournament that Sontag folded up his cards on one hand, but didn't always do it. The complaint was that he should do it the same way every time, and Sontag notes in the book that the complainant was correct.

The same Sontag who admits in that book to being reprimanded for initiating cheating accusations that were not upheld against his opponents.

[junyi_zhu]

jdonn, on Oct 16 2009, 12:53 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 15 2009, 07:46 PM, said:

So, holding your cards under the table when playing against someone who is known to slot, or folding up your cards is "behaving like a moron"? Interesting comment!

What does this have to do with anything? That's not what they were doing. What they were doing is, physically, unnatural. Try to hold the cards with your fingers spread wide, or one finger only behind the cards, as the pictures show they did. It's noticeably uncomfortable.

playing in front of a computer actually kills all the discussions above. Yet, bridge isn't managed by players who enjoy playing this way.

[mike777]

Anyway


DO most of the WC worldwide players the last 40 years believe the Blue Team were a bunch of cheats who do not deserve to be lionized?


I mean most of us nonexperts think the Blue Team won fair and square and are true all time greats.

My take on the link seems to be:


Bobby thought the Blue team cheated and cheated alot.....but three players are true all time greats even if they cheated, often.

[the hog]

Lobowolf, on Oct 16 2009, 07:56 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Oct 15 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

 

Quote

People see what they want to see

Corrolary: People don't see what they don't want to see.

Quote

Truscott comes across as a particularly nasty piece of work.

In contrast to the cuddly Reese, who was often analogized to a teddy bear.

Lobo, this is a stupid comment. Did anyone say that Reese was a particularly genial person?

Anyway, getting back to the card holding theme....
The comment about slotting is a valid one. If you hold your cards under the table against a slotter and you don't against anyone else, you are varying your methods.
One player I knew is ambidextrous. Sometimes he held his cards in the left hand and other times in the right. If anyone wanted to draw conclusions about that, let them.