Is GIB cheating?

While I was eating lunch today I intended to read an old article about four vs five card majors. To my surprise the old magazine – a 1999 IPBM – opened up at, ahem, something I’d written and completely forgotten about. It seemed so relevant to a lively debate we had a couple of months ago here that I thought it was worth reprinting. It goes like this….

Whenever a North American wishes to charge the Italian Blue Team with cheating this hand looms:

	NORTH A107532 K4 KQ K43
WEST Q9 Q10875 J9542 10		EAST J84 9 A10763 A986
	SOUTH K6 AJ632 8 QJ752

As many will recall, It was East on lead both times to 4S. Kaplan led the pedestrian heart, dummy having 2-over-1ed in that suit. Pabis-Ticci began with the ace of clubs. Why?

According to John Swanson, the latest American to come out with his suspicions regarding the Blue Team, pabis-Ticci was asked later ‘why this lead?’ He answered that it was because ‘Arthur Robinson had led the CA to defeat a partscore in an earlier session and he thought it would be nice to ‘hoist him by his own petard’. There you have it. The logic by which an eight times world champion resolves difficult lead decision.’

Swanson doesn’t like the logic. To him it is sufficient to assume that something nefarious is going on. I like Pabis-Ticci’s answer. It shows stle. It is as good a way as any to solve a dilemma. And it has the nice psychological advantage – if it works – of being , as happened in practice, extremely irritating to the opposition. Not, in any case, that his answer need be true…Is Pabis-Ticci supposed to give bridge lessons to his opposition?

Here the point is that Tim Bourke, noted Australian analyst, decided to give the lead problem to GIB. And, guess what? It chose the ace of clubs. Does that mean GIB is cheating?! Later Tim gave the problem to GIB a couple more times and it led (1) a heart and (2) a diamond. Does this mean GIB is random? Or that it is a difficult lead problem?

Finally Tim did a simulation of 120 hands where East is on lead to the auction at Pabis-Ticci’s table. His conclusions were:

(1) Major suit leads were unsuccessful.
(2) The ace of clubs and the ace of diamonds each worked seven times.
(3) There were three hands where either would work.

By the way, after Swanson’s autobiography, aka an anti-Italian diatribe, came out, I wrote an article which I submitted to Bridge World pointing out not only the absurdity of the logic of some of Swanson’s claims, such as on this hand – really, the idea that the Italians should have to teach the Americans how to play is preposterous – but also pointing out that once or twice he actually has his facts wrong. For example he gives an auction to a slam and then claims that the Italian opening lead to it was the result of cheating (what else?) whereas in fact the auction, if you look at the official record of the championship, was a different auction. The editor refused to publish the article. Unfortunately I no longer have it or I’d pop it up here as well.

What happens when selectors select teams? A true story.

Some of this post is direct quote, but since it is from my own History of Australian Bridge, I haven’t thought it necessary to make that clear in the text.

In the 1950s Victor Champion, grand man of Victorian bridge, decided that the reason Victoria was no longer doing well in the Interstate was because the team was selected the wrong way.

Note that logic which is still being used at Australian level. If the team’s no good it it because it’s the wrong team, not that we aren’t good enough and should make our bridge better. Please, don’t let’s work on our bridge, just change the selection methods.

Victoria had won every Open interstate before WWII and now had lost its way. The reason it had lost its way was simple. In the post war migration to Australia, Sydney got the better players. Simple fact. Simple consequence: NSW was finally able to win the Interstate and to do that in convincing, consistent fashion.

At the time Victoria selected its team by team competition. For some years NSW had chosen the most egalitarian of methods, selection by pairs competition. It let anybody get on to the team without having to know the right teammates.

Not that Champion didn’t realise that the difference between Melbourne and Sydney was the migrant impact. But still he thought that the solution had nothing to do with bridge. Instead he insisted on a plan that devastated Victorian bridge: selection by selector.

Asking members to trust in the frail, human judgment of a selection panel was sufficient to fill some with foreboding. Champion, however, wanted even more….his idea was that there would be a sole selector. ‘For this exacting position’ he said, ‘I must admit I had only considered two people – Dr Thwaites and, if I may say so, myself’.

The idea had been mooted and handsomely rejected several times since the war, but sometimes people with bad ideas are simply persistent enough that they come to the fore. World War II itself was lesson enough of that.

In 1955 the editor of the State Bulletin wrote ominously that ‘To be sure we have never seen so many old bridge friends cut each other dead, or walk the other way when they see each other, in so short a time’.

Mohl, one of those against selection expressed the case in an article entitled Selection: Power without Glory. He pointed out all the obvious theoretical difficulties of selection by selector and then moved on to express the worst fears of those against it: ‘…most important of all – they want to be able to keep certain players out of the Interstate Teams. This, I believe, is at least as important to them as to bring other players in’.

This is the crux of the matter and the reason why tempers and emotions ran so high. Those against selection had good cause and it was no coincidence that many were Jewish. Recent history could scarcely endear them to the notion of handing concentrated political power to any one person. If the dispute had just been about the selection of a bridge team, perhaps it would have been resolved, if not amicably, then at least with the practicality which has accompanied these confrontations in the past. It was not only about bridge, however. It was about politics and personalities, it was about a group of dedicated and loyal amateurs embroiled in attempting to save a game which had been ripped apart by World War Two, it was about a gorup of champions unable to come to grips with a New Order.

The end was heralded by a letter to the State Bulletin in which the writers announced that since selection by selector had been brought in, they would no longer be available for consideration for the State team. It included many of Melbourne’s best players.

There could only be losers in this bitter controversy. In September 1955, the Bulletin announced that a split had taken place once more in Victorian bridge. Champion was made vice-president of the State Association and his choice of team for the Interstate was also announced.

Meanwhile, a new competing Bridge Association was set up by those who could not stand selection by selector. It was ruinous for Victorian bridge. The BAV operated for some twenty years, its players out in the cold. Lost not only to Victorian, but to Australian bridge was a host of talent. I can’t help but mention in particular Ethel Ernst, member of the famous Austrian world champion team that included Rixi Markus before WWII. Two of the members came to Australia. Rixi went to the UK.

Selection by personal opinion was not the recipe for recovery that Victoria needed. It was to be over a decade before Victoria won another Open Interstate championship.

Point is, this will always be the the bottom line of selection by selector. ALWAYS. Even if it worked as the best method, and there really isn’t anything to say that it does, it just isn’t worth it.

Defending like the Maestro.

When I first saw the following opening lead problem, it entranced me. Reese was on lead to 4 in the 1964 Olympiad with

Q 9 4
10 9 6 5 4 3
Q 8
A Q

He knew that dummy was strong and balanced, around 20 HCP, and that declarer had five spades. Anybody for the pedestrian heart lead? Not Reese. He began with the queen of clubs.

The idea of this opening lead quite took my fancy and I waited for some years to try it at the table. At last my moment came. Playing a combined scoring of IMPs and
point-a-board I picked up

Q 6
Q 10 9 7 5
J 10 9 3
A Q

After partner passed first in hand, RHO opened a weak two spades, LHO enquired and after discovering that partner had a minimum signed off in 3. I had really been hoping for a more momentous occasion for my spectacular lead but could hardly spurn the opportunity. So, the queen of clubs hit the table and dummy was revealed….

	NORTH A 10 2 A 8 Q 6 5 4 K 9 8 2
WEST Q 6 Q 10 9 7 5 J 10 9 3 A Q		EAST 9 5 K J 6 K 7 J 10 7 6 5 3
	SOUTH K J 8 7 4 3 4 3 2 A 8 2 4

That declarer won the king of clubs at trick one was by no means the worst news. Next ace and another heart saw my partner in. ‘Knowing’ that I held the ace of diamonds (because declarer was ‘known’ to have the ace of clubs) he shifted to the king of diamonds in order to announce his ruff before delivering my ‘known’ club ruff. After the score-up at the end of the match, my teammates really didn’t seem in the mood for an explanation of how it was possible to take so few tricks in the
minors with our cards. I am hoping they will have a little sympathy if they read this story….

Remembering John Armstrong

Early in July when John Armstrong unexpectedly died the world lost not only a great bridge player, but also a most gentlemanly one. The Times obituary can be found here.

John Armstrong 1952-2007

The last time I played John was in the 2006 Commonwealth Games bridge tournament. It was in the Swiss Pairs component and of course Armstrong-Hackett were the number one seed. My partnership not only reached table one and got to play them but as luck would have it we had an extraordinary win after a series of monumental disasters for our esteemed opponents. It was a moment of glory for us, not so much the win itself, nor even overtaking them for a while, but the fact that such great players were interested in our scorecard for a few rounds….It was really only fitting that despite their setback against us, they nonetheless won by a country mile.

The win was unusual for me, having been beaten up by Armstrong more often than I care to recall. One such occasion was the NEC, held in Yokohama each February. I wrote up the 2002 tournament for the now defunct Bridge Today. Here is the article as it appeared.

How we beat the team that came second in the 2002 NEC

Cathy Chua

‘That’s it, I’m not playing any more, I’m going home.’ We’d just scored up round two of the NEC. Darren Wolpert III (aka The Kid) had lost to Australia and he’d had enough. Actually we’d blitzed our opponents in round one as well, but they were Japanese and already home. They had nowhere to run.

Then Sweden, and we were holding our own until the last couple of boards. Let me explain that my partnership couldn’t get to the tournament until 35 minutes before play started, straight from an overnight flight from Sydney. By the end of match three I was out for the count. I picked up two nondescript hands, did nondescript things with them – utterly relieved that I’d had nothing to do. And so PO Sundelin and Johann Sylvan picked up two fine slam swings and it was my fault. If only I’d read the next day’s Bulletin before this match. Kokish declined to feature our encounter, even though it was on the top table, because of the Swedish bidding methods. I could see his point. There are things I’d rather do with Sundelin than watch him relay. More or less anything, actually. If only I’d known, I would have done anything to stop him.

Still, a third sensational set in a row by our teammates Bruce Neill and John Roberts saw us keep 14 VPs, just a couple off the pace. It was enough to make you go down to breakfast and hope people had noticed your score. I had enough VPs under my belt to saunter up to the table where John Armstrong and his teammate Pablo Lambardi were sitting. We had one of those chats you can have when you are winning. ‘Beat Canada I see’. ‘Beat Canada I see’. It was a bit repetitive. England had played Canada in round 3 and maxed them as well.

‘How do you like that Jurek Czyzowicz?’ I think it was me who’d asked that. I’d been relying on the sheer momentum of the physical process to keep me awake during that first day but Jurek made mincemeat of that plan. Never mind bridge. If they had world pausing championships he’d be Canada’s man. ‘Yes,’ said Pablo plaintively in agreement. ‘All the time he thinks, thinks, thinks. What’s he thinking about? I don’t understand. Maybe in the middle of a difficult contract you think. But he thinks all the time. He’s on lead, he thinks. What’s there to think about when you are on lead? You just lead a card.’

It took me aback a bit, I must admit. It’s not the sort of thing you expect a good player to say. I began to wonder if the next match – against England – would be a piece of cake. Evidently their main strategy was not to think. Perhaps some members of the Canadian team thought too much. But surely those English had understated the case for thinking all the same.

Upsetting the Chinese. Afterthought on the Shanghai 2007 World Bridge Championships

I don’t recall the title, but in one of Kinky Friedman’s novels he has a Jewish character make the observation ‘The thing I like about the Chinese is they don’t care that we killed Christ’.

Frankly that’s pretty much what I’ve always thought the Chinese perspective would be. So when the US world champions on the victory dais last year held up a sign which said ‘We didn’t vote for Bush’, I thought the Chinese were as likely to care about that as I do whether Paris Hilton wears underpants.

US women receive their Gold Medals at World Bridge Championships Shanghai 2007

(photo by Simon Hinge)

An aside here….I’m on a mailing list for Hilton hotels and for the life of me I couldn’t understand why I got so many emails about their Paris establishment. ‘Click here for Paris Hilton photos’. ‘Paris Hilton free here’ ‘Paris Hilton special….’ there was no end to them. Quite useful, no doubt, if one lived in England, but not to somebody over the other side of the world. ‘Paris Hilton. Free sex movies.’ was the last straw. I dashed off an email to complain: ‘If the Hilton in Paris can have free sex movies, why can’t the Sydney Hilton?’. Well, it transpires that Paris Hilton is a girl – presumably conceived at the Hilton Hotel in Paris by parents who had both a taste for ancient Greek literature and a hankering for a boy. I need a better email filter.

Back to the subject at hand. The question is ‘Did the Chinese really actually care that the US champs made that statement???’ It is well known that the US bridge administration attempted to inflict all sorts of draconian penalties, so presumably they cared. But is there any actual evidence that the Chinese cared? If so I’d love to see it. I’ve talked to Americans who said the Chinese cared, but they didn’t actually have any information as to how that manifested itself. Could it be there was simply a presumption that the Chinese would care? Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Bridge: Barclay’s Top Ten for 1932-33

Some time ago I wrote a book Fair Play or Foul which looked at various cheating controversies in bridge. I provided additional information on a website I had at the time, but as happens, the website has ceased to be. Not long ago a player in the US wrote to ask for the following article and so I figured it should go here. I will post more historical bridge material here when I can.

First up is a 1930s article, which became infamous for failing to give Culbertson the acknowledgment he considered was his due. Culbertson was prepared to do pretty well anything to be seen as the top player in the US. Bridge was big bucks in the 1930s. It was a rage which consumed the Western world and Culbertson wanted every last dime there was to be extracted from the addiction. Not surprisingly, this article invoked Culbertson’s wrath.