[TimG]

Siegmund, on Aug 7 2010, 01:14 PM, said:

Quote

For what it is worth, Schapiro's wikipedia entry makes no mention of a posthumous admission.

Reese's does. (As a result of comments I made to Reese's Talk page on wikipedia.)

It says:

Quote

A later claim was made, by a bridge player and publisher, to the effect that Reese had made a confession to him forty years previously. This claim was made public after the deaths of both Reese and Schapiro. There is no corroboration to support this account. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-...ers-490277.html

[bill1157]

peachy, on Aug 7 2010, 01:21 PM, said:

bill1157, on Aug 7 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

The whole idea of finger signals to show heart length is ridiculous if you think about it.  It is a case of a couple of overzealous people coming up with anything to support their suspicion that Reese and Shapiro were cheating.

Bill

There is not only a number of witnesses over several sessions, but also photos, of signals that correlate with the number of hearts. What more should be needed, a confession?

apparently very little actual evidence is needed!

[jkdood]

Of course there are smart or extremely able cheaters, as well as poor ones.

It was somewhat amusing to me that the Reese Shapiro UK defense of the Argentina actions largely centered on what they did or didn't do, or could have done, on specific hands.

It seems to me that anyone deep into cheating and also somewhat smart about it, would vary their usages accordingly. They might bid a hand occasionally in such a way that it might be used as defensive evidence, should the need occur, that they could not have been cheating a certain way.

Therefore it may be extremely difficult to establish cheating took place by even careful expert analysis of a large set of deals, if the cheater is thus smart.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Aug 7 2010, 04:22 AM, said:

"People will make up stuff right up to the day they die..."

"Yes, such as their own innocence. "

Josh, I don't even think you yourself know what you are writing.

People certainly will do that. You then accused me claiming R&S did that (well ok you accused "someone" of it). We seem to be experiencing a communication breakdown that could be easily avoided by you reading a post before claiming it says something else.

[the hog]

jdonn, on Aug 8 2010, 07:56 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Aug 7 2010, 04:22 AM, said:

"People will make up stuff right up to the day they die..."

"Yes, such as their own innocence. "

Josh, I don't even think you yourself know what you are writing.

People certainly will do that. You then accused me claiming R&S did that (well ok you accused "someone" of it). We seem to be experiencing a communication breakdown that could be easily avoided by you reading a post before claiming it says something else.

You are right when you say there is a communication breakdown. However I really don't think it my failure to read posts - quite the contrary, I mostly read posts carefully before i reply. Seriously, read your comment again and look at its location. If you were not suggesting that R-S make this up then we really do speak a different form of English.

[the hog]

fred, on Aug 8 2010, 12:57 AM, said:

IMO the pictures in Truscott's book are completely damning even without the (near?) perfect correlation between the # of fingers shown in the pictures and the # of hearts held by both players.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred, I am sure that if I took photos of you playing, it would also be possible to suggest that certain mannerisms could be construed to be passing information. Everyone does something - I frequently take off my glasses and put them on the table, or drink a coffee and place my cup somewhere or whatever or whatever.

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Aug 7 2010, 09:00 PM, said:

Seriously, read your comment again and look at its location. If you were not suggesting that R-S make this up then we really do speak a different form of English.

If you are to infer anything from my comment beyond what is said, it should be something like "R&S would claim their own innocence whether they were innocent or not.", not "R&S's claim of their own innocence is made up." What you claimed I said is still a complete misrepresentation no matter how much you deny it.

The_Hog, on Aug 7 2010, 09:08 PM, said:

fred, on Aug 8 2010, 12:57 AM, said:

IMO the pictures in Truscott's book are completely damning even without the (near?) perfect correlation between the # of fingers shown in the pictures and the # of hearts held by both players.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Fred, I am sure that if I took photos of you playing, it would also be possible to suggest that certain mannerisms could be construed to be passing information. Everyone does something - I frequently take off my glasses and put them on the table, or drink a coffee and place my cup somewhere or whatever or whatever.

"or whatever or whatever" meaning you hold your cards with 2 fingers behind them spread in a V formation one hand, 3 fingers pressed together on the next hand, and just a single finger on the next hand? Really, no?

[the hog]

Josh, if you "make something up", it means that it is not true. Eg "he made up that story about him being rich in order to impress the girl". He is not rich; it was a fabrication. So in effect you are saying their innocence is a fabrication.

It really does appear that we speak/write a different form of English. Anyway, my last post on this as it is tiresome.

Anyway, one last thing for you to think about. Why did Perroux, the capt of the Blue Team, and the members thereof not join in the accusations? Basically they thought they were a joke. Please don't give the answer that Bobby Wolf probably would, that they were cheating as well.

[gnasher]

Hanoi5, on Aug 6 2010, 10:25 PM, said:

TimG, on Aug 6 2010, 05:13 PM, said:

Hanoi5, on Aug 6 2010, 03:59 PM, said:

I've only heard about heart length. And the last thing I knew about this matter is that after the death of Schapiro a lawyer said they acknowledged cheating but only to prove that it could be done.

I have not been particularly attentive to the world for bridge for the past few years, but this is something that I think would have been widely reported if it were true. This is the first I have heard of it. In fact, I vaguely recall there being some mention of disappointment that there was no statement left to be read after Schapiro's death. For what it is worth, Schapiro's wikipedia entry makes no mention of a posthumous admission.

As I mentioned a lawyer said it. Maybe it wasn't official but the bulletin where it can be found on the internet (maybe could have been found) had the statement and, if I'm not mistaken, Truscott's reaction.

Rex-Taylor wasn't a lawyer, he was a publishing executive. His account was published in the IBPA Bulletin:

http://www.ibpa.com/...etins/485df.pdf

The story didn't last long partly because he didn't offer any evidence other than his own word, and partly because it seemed so unlikely that Reese would have confided in him. The idea that a man with Reese's ego should wish to destroy his own reputation from beyond the grave seems particularly unlikely.

Siegmund said:

I think Rex-Taylor's original claim involved some sealed papers that couldn't be opened until 40 years after Buenos Aires, not just hearsay, but I never did see copies of the papers scanned and posted.

Rex-Taylor didn't mention any such documents.

Quote

Nor did I see anyone establishing it was a hoax.

Since he offered no evidence, it was impossible to refute his claim.

[Siegmund]

Thanks for posting the link to the full IBPA article. (I didn't ever see the IBPA newsletter, only electronic versions of most of the article.)

As an aside, I wonder why the extra copies of Trick Thirteen were destroyed rather than just remaindered... it's quite a rare book now. It would sell much better today than it did in the early 70s, possibly outsell many of the other 'bridge novels' on the market today. (Yes, I have a rather dog-eared copy in my collection, obtained third-hand from another book dealer who got it at an estate sale.)

[jdonn]

The_Hog, on Aug 7 2010, 09:45 PM, said:

Josh, if you "make something up", it means that it is not true. Eg "he made up that story about him being rich in order to impress the girl". He is not rich; it was a fabrication. So in effect you are saying their innocence is a fabrication.

It really does appear that we speak/write a different form of English. Anyway, my last post on this as it is tiresome.

I replied to a post that said people "will" (in other words would) make something up, not "did" make something up.

Of course it is tiresome to try and argue with someone about what they themselves said. It's hard to win that argument to begin with, and even moreso when as here anyone can read the posts and see you are wrong.

Quote

Anyway, one last thing for you to think about. Why did Perroux, the capt of the Blue Team, and the members thereof not join in the accusations? Basically they thought they were a joke. Please don't give the answer that Bobby Wolf probably would, that they were cheating as well.

I don't know why I should think of that. Now they are innocent because another team didn't accuse them of the same thing? I suppose the unabomber is innocent because I didn't accuse him of killing anyone.