[avonw]

 mycroft, on 2023-February-07, 22:42, said:

Fine, my memory is bad. It's only been 6 years; it's felt like a decade. Fine, my knowledge of the current status of the Blue Team is bad. That's because - and stop me if you've heard this before - some people's concern about a scandal older than they are might not be as large as yours. I have my own biases, and one of them is that bridge might be a lot better if we stopped picking at scabs, especially scabs that we know won't change anything even if we open up the old wounds again.

And yes, I guessed at why the ABF didn't want you bringing up all this ancient history on a national stage (I note, all you said was "Permission denied", so - how would I know?) Turns out instead, that one of the people that - just possibly - had their own biases about the matter was there, and the ABF decided they'd rather insult you than embarrass him - and in turn, be themselves embarrassed. Sounds like "everyone has their biases, and we should pay attention to them when making our decision." to me.

Oddly enough, just today while running my club game, I ran across an article posted at Https://vincitoridibridge.com.it/Il-ibro-della-squadra, by Mario Rossi. I've cut quite a bit from it, and I'm sure that pescetom could do a better job of my loose translation. But:



So, why the difference between two presentations of the same facts? Could it be that one was written by someone who is writing "the most thorough deal-by-deal examination ever done" about what he is becoming convinced (and wishes to convince others) was the highest-profile cheating team in bridge history, and the other by a 10-year member of the board of the FIGB and occasional partner of Forquet?

And that is all that I am saying - in fact, all that I have ever said[*]. The quote was "I think that some of the hands were improved by the authors, according to research by a guy called Avon Wilsmore who has written a book about the blue team." My implied response: "When you read the results of said research, know that it was written by someone who is convinced that these guys cheated for the better part of 10 years, and has written a book and several articles detailing his evidence. As a result he is likely to put a more culpable spin on said 'improvement'."

I am not saying that I have evidence of bias in your book. I couldn't and wouldn't - I haven't read it (for why, see para. 1). I am not saying I think your conclusions are wrong. I'm saying that your book is evidence of your bias, when it comes to how you would present Forquet's "improvement" of hands. Which, as I implied in that part you "couldn't understand", is something that bridge writers have been doing since bridge was born, and if it no longer happens in published books (which I don't believe for a minute, even with so many more eyes and so much more automation looking for it) it sure hell happens at every post-mortem at every bar next to the playing site of every tournament. I'm sure I've even done it myself - pretty certain I've never stolen someone else's story, though. The only thing more "grown in the telling" than a fisherman's story is "one time, against Hamman-Lev..." But it might be presented, in this specific case, by this specific reviewer, as the Mark of Cain.

[*] Okay, I have also said that compliments on how well you have confirmed their suspicions, from players who have a great deal of reputation to gain by having their suspicions confirmed, may not have quite the effect of similar compliments by those not so intimately involved.

Spoiler

I gave enough clues. I take no responsibility. I don't even feel guilty about it.

Thank you for the link to the Italian text; unfortunately it does not work for me. I see that they mention Forquet's introductory text, All the hands used arose in actual competition and are faithfully and accurately reported."

I am sure we agree that to make such a statement when the truth is anything but, is a very grave matter indeed.

I am not the first to note Forquet's dishonesty.

The Bridge World, July 1983:
The deals are presented as if played by Forquet and his teammates while compiling their incredible record … (indeed, many of the deals were played by Blue Team stars)...

I wrote to Jeff Rubens, asking if he knew any of the deals that caused Kaplan to write this, but he did not.

BTW, when you are next at your club, give the Forquet's 5C deal "played by Belladonna" to a useful player there. He will likely outplay "Belladonna". Forquet's analysis is wrong.

Your text contains more errors:

... convinced that these guys cheated for the better part of 10 years.

From 1957 to 1983 is more than ten years.

...compliments on how well you have confirmed their suspicions, from players who have a great deal of reputation to gain by having their suspicions confirmed, may not have quite the effect of similar compliments by those not so intimately involved.

I have received very favourable magazine reviews all across Europe. The Chinese Bridge Federation paid for the translation into Mandarin and employed staff to double-check everything they could. Do you have any facts, rather than vague statements about "suspicions"?

Really, the case is closed, dead, over and out. Not one single top-class player has every suggested any doubt about my book's findings. Given that all you have are repetitive and unsubstantiated lines about bias in a book that you have not read, I shall be saying no more.

[avonw]

 nullve, on 2023-February-08, 03:24, said:

But bidding systems evolve, and in one version of Roman Club it seems like 1♣ (followed by 2♣ and 2♥) was the correct opening with this type of hand. (You can check these notes on Dan Neill's webpage.) So if that was the version they were supposed to play, then they would gain absolutely nothing by opening 2♥ on that deal.


But exclusion advances to doubles (see e.g. deal 50 in this video) were also part of Roman Club at some point, which partly explains how they could get away with doubling on hands like this. (It's the exclusion advance, not the double, that shows tolerance for unbid suits.) Why don't you mention exclusion advances in your article? Or do you?

As for the Roman 2H opening (12-16) with an Acol Two, I have no interest in anything other that contemporaneous works by Avarelli and Belladonna.
Belladonna was "lucky" to find Avarelli with nothing but a useless jack; his call could have gained in many ways (primarily by the opponents misjudging).

I think you are spending too much time looking at trivial detail; the real deal is, the incredible extent to which wild and weird actions match partner's hand.

An example from the same year as GB's massive 2H underbid:
AQJxxx A AK10 Qxx. You are vul.
3H P P X

In a Bridge Winners poll, 100% either doubled or bid 4S. But Pabis-Ticci bid 3S. Again partner had a useless jack. +140.
Tell me, do you think that such underbidding is the way to win three consecutive Olympiads and ten consecutive Bermuda Bowls?

There is no specific mention of Roman exclusion advances in the article; they certainly get discussed in the book. P9 of the article discusses Roman's responsive-type doubles (1suit X new-suit X) which are closely related. 1966/45 really is quite something.

P12 looks at Neapolitan's Herbert Negative advance to a TOX. Take a look at the last hand; I have little doubt that that would have been one of the items that caused every member of the US team to sign a declaration stating that the BT players cheated. Kaplan (US coach, author of a 1957 book on Italian systems) arranged training sessions where the team played Roman and Neapolitan. All the players would have known what happened on that deal.

That the BT players had "help" when making takeout doubles can be seen in Chapter 17 of mu book, where I list every deal from 1957-1959 where a BT player doubled a W2.

Samples:

Forquet
Kxx Ax 109x AQxxx
2S P P X

Avarelli
x KJxx Axxx KQxx
2D X

Belladonna
10 KJx AQxx Kxxxx
P 2H X

Belladonna
AQxx 10xxx 10xxx A
P P P 2H
P P X

And there were no Exclusion Advances. What would you say to a partner who made these doubles?

Anyway, I have little more to add. These are available resources:

- Small sample of BT hands:
http://bridgewinners...blue-team-rule/

- My book, that covers the 1958 accusation, the 1963 Gerber Letter, the 1975 Facchini-Zucchelli scandal, the 1976 Burgay Tape, instances of official cover-ups and detailed review of hundreds of hands

- A list of Italian administrative actions and cover-ups:
https://bridgewinner...y-is-different/

- A look at Avarelli
https://bridgewinner...alter-avarelli/

[mycroft]

1. As I said in the spoiler, I gave enough clues. (wonders. Did you actually click on the link? Did anybody else?)
2. Since you repeatedly wish to defend something I have never, and have no wish to, attack, rather than deal with my actual point, I agree that there is no further reason to talk past each other. Which is unfortunate, I think the point is actually interesting.

I (sincerely! your work is valuable and of great worth! just not to me!) wish you well in your continuing actions down that path. Especially if you can do something about changing the way the politics works in the governing bodies so that today's emulators of the less laudable side of the Blue Team's story get a different reaction in this century. Given how all the politicians stepped up to the plate in August 2021 - I'm less of an optimist even than you.

[nullve]

 avonw, on 2023-February-08, 07:00, said:

P12 looks at Neapolitan's Herbert Negative advance to a TOX. Take a look at the last hand; I have little doubt that that would have been one of the items that caused every member of the US team to sign a declaration stating that the BT players cheated. Kaplan (US coach, author of a 1957 book on Italian systems) arranged training sessions where the team played Roman and Neapolitan. All the players would have known what happened on that deal.

Avon Wilsmore, The Talk That Never Was: The Blue Team Rule, p. 12 said:

Neapolitan used "Herbert Negatives", whereby the next step was a negative response. Edgar Kaplan gives this hand as a minimum 2♣ (not-negative) response after partner doubles 1♠: ♠ K x x ♥ x x x ♦ x x ♣ Q 10 x x x.

Here is the Herbert Negative in action:

1957 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 77.

---

It is as plain as could be that both players knew that the Herbert Negative was in use. Siniscalco bid the next step with a poor hand and a doubleton, and Forquet didn't "raise" with six diamonds,

From the chapter, "Partner Will Understand":

This auction is in accordance with the stated methods. However, there are some “issues” with using a Herbert Negative; it can make the auction awkward when the responder to the double actually has the next-step suit and some values. What if you have more than a negative but not enough to jump opposite an Italianate off-shape double? How to iron matters out? No problem, partner will understand. Consider this next deal:

1958 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 32

---

Here we see an illustration of much of what is wrong with off-shape doubles. First, note that, on board 35 of the same tournament, Siniscalco doubled an opening bid of 1♦ on his right with: ♠ Q 9 2 ♥ Q ♦ A J 10 7 4 3 ♣ A 9 8

Given that there is no guarantee of heart support, how should Siniscalco respond to Forquet’s double of 1♦, above? Siniscalco could not jump to 2♥; that could be a silly fit, so he chose 1♥. But wait, that’s a Herbert Negative, showing about 0-5, any shape! Bizarrely, Forquet clearly knew that it was a suit and values. How is that possible?

As noted on page three of this article, every member of the 1958 US team signed a declaration that the Blue Team cheated. Do you think this hand would have been one of the reasons why?

Are you sure Sinisicalco's 1♥ advance on board 32 (or D'Alelio's on board 40 (see this video of the match)), was not a Chiaradia-style Herbert negative, described in this article by P. E. Garrisi?

Quote

Eugenio Chiaradia takes up the Herbert Negative again but sweetens it with a binder; it is usuable only if the suit to bid has at least three cards. Chiaradia's step reply is a modest improvement; the suit to bid may be the four card in a 7-8 point hand, a problem also for the Herbert, or else the hand is weak but the step has 0-2 cards, not biddable.

This post has been edited by nullve: 2023-February-09, 07:13

[PrecisionL]

I have been playing a Power Double (15+ hcp, usually balanced) with Herbert responses for several years and like our scheme.

If responder has a semi-positive (6-8 hcp) in the Herbert Negative suit (♦, or ♥, or ♠, he responds 1NT. This works well (usually).

Jumps are forcing (9+ hcp), usually Hxxxx suit, maybe HHxx.

[avonw]

 nullve, on 2023-February-09, 06:12, said:

Are you sure Sinisicalco's 1♥ advance on board 32 (or D'Alelio's on board 40 (see this video of the match)), was not a Chiaradia-style Herbert negative, described in this article by P. E. Garrisi?

I have emailed Sr Garrisi in the past. He is very firm that I know nothing about bridge whatsoever, and am particularly stupid when it comes to takeout doubles.

Meanwhile, he is wrong about Chiaradia and Herbert Negatives. BTW, Chiaradia started work on Neapolitan in 1948... after a decade he had decided upon the unplayable 12-17 1NT opening. There is a section of my book that shows that Chiaradia did not how simple Stayman worked.

Now, here is every Neapolitan HN auction after a 1D opening, 1957-1959

1957/115
Forquet
J10 Q72 J1063 J983
P 1D X P
1H
Siniscalco had four hearts and did not "raise". He knew it was an artificial call.
What happened to "...or else the hand is weak but the step has 0-2 cards, not biddable."?

1957/129
Forquet
K1093 1064 5 J9763
1D X P 1H
What happened to "...or else the hand is weak but the step has 0-2 cards, not biddable."?

1958/32
Siniscalco
QJ4 97653 A109 64
P 1D X P
1H P 2H
How did Forquet know to raise with three hearts and a balanced 15-count? Why can't partner have the first hand, above?

In any event, all this stuff about Herbert Negatives and Exclusion bids is a red-herring.

Avarelli & Belladonna's Roman Club book, 1959:

Immediate take-out double (by South) over East’s opening bid:

Holding 12-16 points with 4=4=3=2, 4=4= 4=1, 5=4=3=1 or 5=4=2=2 distribution and the opening suit coinciding with your shortest suit. (Can also be made occasionally with distributions of 4=3=3=3 or 5=3=3=2 when the doubleton is in the suit bid by the opponent.)

Avarelli & Belladonna's Roman Club book, 1969:

Informatory Double in Second Position of a Suit Bid.

...The requirements for the double are 12-16 points with 4=4=3=2, 4=4=4=1, 5=4=3=1 or 5=4=2=2 distributions, where the long suits are not the same as the suit opened. 4=3=3=3 and 5=3=3=2 (with the doubleton in the suit opened) are also permissible.

1957/22
Avarelli
K4 K2 KJ973 K942
1C ?
Avarelli doubled

1958/118
K AJ1075 AJ86 872
1C ?
Avarelli doubled

1962/54
8 AJ106 AJ865
A94
1C ?
Belladonna doubled

1962/122
Q106 10 AK1054 QJ95
Belladonna doubled.

We see that Avarelli and Belladonna are liars.

See p8 of my article:
http://bridgewinners...blue-team-rule/

Read this quote (incorrectly ascribed to Perroux; it was actually Pabis-Ticci):

Many spectators in the Bridge-rama wondered how Avarelli could not bid on to 4 Hearts over four diamonds, but for whoever knows the Roman Club the answer is simple: Avarelli cannot have less than that in hearts to freely bid the suit at the three level, and in case Belladonna had had a couple of small cards in support, his choice would have been between passing or raising. When he bids four diamonds he shows beyond any doubt that his double hinges on a long diamond suit.

Check the hand that follows. Is it not unbiddable? By what means did Avarelli know slam was not a sound proposition?

Check the next hand. It exposes Pabis-Ticci as a liar.

Check the next hand. How was Belladonna able to jump in a five-card suit when partner doubled 1S with a 4-1-4-4 on the previous board?

There is page after page of this sort of stuff in my book, covering overcalls, opening leads, takeout doubles, openings, rebids grotesque systemic violations that never pay out, and and much more.

This is getting repetitive.

[johnu]

 H Potter, on 2023-January-14, 01:54, said:

Hi, does anyone happen to know of anywhere I can source a copy of this book in the UK. Many thanks in advance. Nigel.

I loaned my first copy to a friend who lost it. Recently, I got a used copy on Amazon.com 4 or 5 years ago for a reasonable price IMO. Since the book is long out of print, sellers list the price at whatever they think they can get.

[nullve]

 avonw, on 2023-February-10, 08:23, said:

Meanwhile, he is wrong about Chiaradia and Herbert Negatives.

Ok, but why is he wrong?

Quote

Eugenio Chiaradia takes up the Herbert Negative again but sweetens it with a binder; it is usuable only if the suit to bid has at least three cards. Chiaradia's step reply is a modest improvement; the suit to bid may be the four card in a 7-8 point hand, a problem also for the Herbert, or else the hand is weak but the step has 0-2 cards, not biddable.

My interpretation of this applied to the sequence (1♦)-X-(P):

1♥ = a) 0-6, 3+ H* b) 7-8, 4+ H**

* "[the Herbert Negative] is usable on if the suit to bid has at least three cards" and "[if] the hand is weak but the step has 0-2 cards, [then the step is] not biddable"
** "the suit to bid may be the four card in a 7-8 point hand"

 avonw, on 2023-February-10, 08:23, said:

Now, here is every Neapolitan HN auction after a 1D opening, 1957-1959

1957/115
Forquet
J10 Q72 J1063 J983
P 1D X P
1H
Siniscalco had four hearts and did not "raise". He knew it was an artificial call.
What happened to "...or else the hand is weak but the step has 0-2 cards, not biddable."?

1957/129
Forquet
K1093 1064 5 J9763
1D X P 1H
What happened to "...or else the hand is weak but the step has 0-2 cards, not biddable."?

1958/32
Siniscalco
QJ4 97653 A109 64
P 1D X P
1H P 2H
How did Forquet know to raise with three hearts and a balanced 15-count? Why can't partner have the first hand, above?

If my interpretation above is correct, then 1♥ was the systemic bid on all three boards and Siniscalco could comfortably pass with ♠Q72 ♥KQJ2 ♦92 ♣AQ52 on board 129, knowing they had at least a 7c fit.

So Siniscalco had ♠A6543 ♥KJ63 ♦9 ♣AKT on board 115 and didn't raise. He bid 1♠ didn't, he? (And why not?)

Forquet's raise with ♠987 ♥AKJ ♦53 ♣AKJ87 on board 32 still looks weird (2♥ could be on a 3-3 fit), but maybe he was worried about missing game if he passed and felt that 2♥ was the lesser lie. And they did reach 4♥, a dubious contract that was also reached at the other table after

P-(1♦)-X-(P)
1♥-(P)-2♣*-(P)
2N-(P)-3♥-(P)
4♥-(P)-P-(P)

* another "lesser lie" sugggesting that also Silodor was worried about missing game?

.