Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Rodolfo Cerreto
1 2 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maurizio, you stated here above “The whole Lavazza team (well, all the Italian experts) play the same, and from at least 20 years” now you add “NS certainly could not prove their agreement”. How comes?
March 20, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It might be useful to remind that North and East share the same screen side as well as South and West. East got a wrong information from North but he had no role in the mix up. West made a questionable call upon a right information. Once NS can prove 1S did show a takeout with less than 4 cards in spades the question should be over, I think. If my point stands then West's arguments are pointless and he can only blame himself. Either I'm missing something or the final decision makes no sense to me.
March 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Any Lavazza partnership plays the same agreement: X = 4/5 spades; 1S = take out with less than 4 spades. I'm astonished Bilde forgot it. I can imagine Madala was not very kind to him :-)
March 19, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr Klis, hope you'll forgive me for being so naive.
There are just two simple points here:
are they cheaters? Yes
is there any doubt? No
That's what the committee said.
We don't need any obfuscation. Your clients might, on the other hand.
June 30, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
@Donald: The Prosecutor is not an underlying. He is independent and can act on anybody's input or by his own decision. Saying that the President or the Board “definitely” had a role is incorrect. But, of course, they *could* have. So your assumption has some merit.
June 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe someone missed an important spot.
Look at the Fantoni-Nunes case in Italy: a Prosecutor made a case, some experts expressed their standpoint, a Court took a decision. That's the way a legal system is supposed to work. Neither the President nor the Board had any role. It looks right to me. On the other hand, EBL appointed a Committee which delivered their findings to the EBL President which, in turn, decided whether or not to drop the case. That's how a political system works.
IMHO, we need more legal systems and less political ones.
EBL doesn't look up to the task.
Oh right, I'm forgetting WBF. Beside blaming “kangaroo courts” and “lynch mobs” are they doing anything? Does anyone know?
June 1, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The Court's sentence states quite clearly, and in deep detail, why they are entitled to act on the subject. Mr Aubry should be more respectful of our legal system. But maybe he just forgot to read.
April 15, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nick, you made the right point. It's not the Court to be blamed but the rules which are too mild. Very sensibly, the Court wanted to avoid any legal challenge and left very little room for appeals. I think they are right.
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As a matter of fact, the Prosecutor considered two separate offenses and asked for 3+3 years. The Court didn't agree since “first offense” has to be considered “first charge”.
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The applied penalty is the longest allowed under current Italian rules. Anyone can have her/his standpoint whether it's adequate or not. Fantunes have any right to appeal but, in the while, they can't play.
As far as it's worth, I'm proud of our legal system that looked for justice, in a reasonable time, while keeping high respect of defense's rights. I've been very critical at them, in the past. Not this time.
April 12, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Paolo, it's a restricted group. It needs to subscribe to get access. Maybe you'd rather copy and paste.
Nov. 28, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Geoff, I like your standpoint but maybe we should wait for someone to be actually proven guilty (as likely as it may be). Afterwards, something will surely happen. It has to, for the sake of the game.
Nov. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I spoke with Lorenzo Lauria on the matter and I'd like to clarify once more that he and Alfredo aren't at all troubled to be under scrutiny. They accept it gracefully, being confident to be clean. What outraged them is to be target of such a generic and ill conceived accusation. I do agree with them, as much as it's worth.
Nov. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Points (2) and (4) look pretty equivalent to me.
Nov. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Arno, I agree with you. A hypothesis is unsubstantiated by definition. Still, you're supposed to make it public *after* having successfully tested it. Otherwise you're just making noise.
I think that Mr Hammond made a great job organizing the data in a structured fashion allowing anybody to test his/her own hypothesis. I'm sorry to say he screwed it up, making generic accusations (two Italian anonymous pairs) without solid arguments. This is unneeded, IMHO.
Nov. 25, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Alfredo, I think that the Italian team playing in Opatija was as clean as possible. I understand you're angry when someone casts doubts about it.
I didn't read the original post nor I can now since it has been deleted. If the author simply asked to go through some deals and videos, I wouldn't bother.
We can't say that some players can be checked and some others can not without expressing a prejudice.
From my standpoint, I'm pretty sure you can stand any checking without a sweat.
Nov. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Flagging this gentleman's posting in order to remove it would be too kind to him. Let's keep it to his shame.
Nov. 11, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Let's face it. The efforts made so far by the WBF to fight cheating aren't outstanding. Only time will tell whether these are just words or there's something real behind them.
You can bet on one thing, though. As long as Mr Rona rules, WBF will be as transparent as a concrete block.
We had a long lasting experience on this, in Italy, when he was president of the Italian Bridge Federation. I don't think the man changed his attitude.
Oct. 24, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Max,
from a theoretical standpoint, I do agree with you.
Still, gathering this evidence is so difficult to be practically unfeasible, I think.
That's likely the reason why we've been so unsuccessful in getting them so far.
Maybe crowd sourcing will change the game.
But only if WBF, EBL, ACBL and NBOs will endorse the approach. I'm unsure about it.
Oct. 3, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Lo, please allow me to disagree. Illogical plays stand out. They are easy to detect. Too many of them, too often winning, are a clear evidence of cheating, IMO.
But you're going to catch just the silly (or eager) cheats.
On the other hand, think how many times you have a choice between two perfectly logical bid or play. Depending on some undisclosed feature of your partner's hand, one of them will win, the other won't.
Now, if you can rely on better info… you see the point.
Only breaking the code will help identifying them.

BTW I'm not saying that any of the mentioned pair is or is not cheating. I'm just making a theoretical point.

Oct. 3, 2015
1 2 3
.

Bottom Home Top