Intermediate

Pandora’s Box The Editor looks at the story that has set the world of bridge ablaze.

T

he most sensational story to engulf the world of bridge since 1965 was introduced by an announcement on the Bridgewinners.com website. ‘Four members of the team that won the 2014 Spingold and Reisinger (Boye Brogeland, Allan Graves, Espen Lindqvist, and Richie Schwartz) have announced their intent to vacate their titles from 2014 - 2015 that they won with Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz. A comment that Brogeland posted on Bridge Winners earlier today: “If you have a cheating pair on your team, I believe you should lose whatever Masterpoints, Seeding points and titles you have won together. The Schwartz team from the two previous cycles (Richie Schwartz, Allan Graves, Espen Lindqvist and Boye Brogeland) has decided to give up the Spingold Trophy, the Reisinger Trophy and the North American Swiss (they won the 2015 Jacoby Swiss, not the NA Swiss) that we ‘won’ in 2014 and 2015. We believe in a clean game and we love bridge.” Personal calls to Allan Graves and Richie Schwartz confirm Brogeland’s comment. Graves was quoted as saying he “wholeheartedly supports this action.” http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/2014-spingold-champs-offer-to-vacate-titles/ It did not take long for the world’s press to pick up on this story–the announcement had come not long after Boye’s team had lost a close match to a squad including Fisher/Schwartz at the ACBL Nationals in Chicago. Articles appeared in the Daily Telegraph and The Times and some of the tabloids and Patrick Jourdain was interviewed by the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b067h5bh (scroll to 23.20) EBU Vice Chairman Ian Payn discussed the subject with TalkSport (select the 14:00-14:30 section of the programme and scroll to 9:50) This article by Patrick and Harriet Alexander appeared in The Times on 25 August:

“They came together to do battle: an international team of warriors, fighting for glory, honour, and thousands of dollars in reward. But now that triumphant team of bridge players has been ripped apart by accusations that would, in the words of the whistleblower, ‘even make a Hollywood movie surreal.’ “Two Israeli men, Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz, have been accused by their teammates of cheating. “Quite how they cheated is unclear, but Norwegian bridge professional Boye Brogeland, one of the world’s highest-rated bridge players, said the other four members of the team were handing back three titles they had won together. “‘If you have a cheating pair on your team, I believe you should lose whatever Masterpoints, Seeding points and titles you have won together,’ said Mr Brogeland, rocking the world of bridge with his claims of skulduggery at a top tournament. “‘The Schwartz team from the two previous cycles has decided to give up the three titles that we ‘won’ in 2014 and 2015. We believe in a clean game and we love bridge.’ “Mr Fisher hit back, accusing the others of being simply envious of their talent. “‘Jealousy made you sick,’ he wrote on Tuesday. ‘Get ready for a meeting with the devil.’ “The saga began in July 2014, in Las Vegas, when Mr Brogeland’s team triumphed in the Spingold tournament – one of the most famous of all championships. 36

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate “The six men – two Israelis, two Americans and two Norwegians – then won again in November at the Reisinger, another major tournament, held in the city of Providence, in Rhode Island. “They went on to claim a third title, winning the Jacoby Swiss tournament in New Orleans in March this year. “But on Tuesday Mr Brogeland snapped, and declared war on his Israeli team mates. “‘What I am going to write now, I would ask you to take some seconds or minutes to think about,’ he wrote in a prelude to the allegations. “‘Very soon there will come out mind-boggling stuff. It will give us a tremendous momentum to clean the game up, from the bottom to the very top. But it will take courage and it will demand standing up against the powers of the game.’ Mr Brogeland said he knew his allegations would have a huge impact – and that his supporters should be prepared for the fall-out. “‘Never back down for keeping this thread public,’ he wrote. ‘Go out, fight the good fight and get things done. Not in a year, not in days, not in hours, but now. For the future of our beautiful game.’ “He then went on to accuse the two Israelis of cheating. He did not specify how they cheated, but said that the others on his team had agreed that the Israelis cheated – and that they would hand back the three titles. “The revelation caused shock among bridge afficionados. “‘I am sitting here with my jaw open. Wow,’ said Richard Lawson, a bridge player from Minnesota. ‘Kudos to them for a brave move.’ “Geoff Hampson, a Canadian bridge professional who has previously won the Springold, said: ‘BRAVO! This can’t have been an easy thing to do, I applaud you all! I hope this paves the way for a cleaner game and inspires others to follow your example.’ “Another commentator likened the two Israelis on the team, Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz, to disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong. “‘I think we have to pay for stupidity also in bridge to keep the game as clean and pure as it can be,’ he wrote.” The Israeli pair did not respond to the post. Earlier this year, when there were rumours in the bridge world that the Israeli pair were using illicit information; in an interview with NEW in Bridge Mr Fisher brushed off the accusations, saying “it is the price of success”. Others online were questioning how the Israelis could have cheated. Bridge players at this level are separated from their partners by screens, North and East sit one side of the screen; South and West sit the other side. Matches are screened live on the internet watched by an audience of thousands. It was unclear what evidence Mr Brogeland had for his accusations. And in the minds of bridge connoisseurs, it brought back memories of the “coughing doctors” episode, when two German doctors cheated their way to victory, passing information to their partners by well-timed coughs. After a two-day hearing in a Dallas hotel in March 2014, the game’s governing body declared that Michael Elinescu, 61, and Entscho Wladow, 71, had deployed subterfuge in the shape of a system of coded coughs to win the bridge world finals during a fiercely-contested tournament in Bali in 2013. The two Germans are currently suing the World Bridge Federation for banning them from the game. The immediate question was ‘What was the evidence?’ 37

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Boye Brogeland promised to reveal all in due course – he likened it to opening Pandora’s Box. (An artifact in Greek mythology, taken from the myth of Pandora’s creation in Hesiod’s Works and Days. The box was in reality a large jar given to Pandora which contained all the evils of the world.) Meanwhile I was reviewing a few items that I had gathered from independent sources. Could they throw any light on things? There was a deal from a recent ACBL National that was circulated – the details are sketchy, but the bidding apparently went 1NT-2ƅ*-2Ɔ-3NT and one of the Israelis led a heart from four small hitting partner’s ƆKQJ10. Earlier this year this deal occurred in the Slava Cup in Moscow, which I included in my report on the event: In one semi-final Vitas led Sweden 36-29 at the half, but with just one deal remaining they trailed by a single IMP. Dealer West. None Vul.

Ƅ 10 3 Ɔ A7 6 4 3 Ƈ 83 ƅ A J 10 9

Ƅ J42 Ɔ J 10 2 Ƈ KQ76 ƅ 862 N W

S

E

Ƅ A8 7 Ɔ KQ5 Ƈ A4 2 ƅ KQ73

Ƅ KQ965 Ɔ 98 Ƈ J 10 9 5 ƅ 54 In the Open Room Sweden had played in 3NT for +460. Closed Room

1NT 2Ƈ 2NT 4Ƈ

West North East South Fisher Petersson Schwartz Ahlesved Pass Pass 1NT* Pass Pass 2NT* Pass 2Ƈ* 3ƅ Pass 4ƅ Pass Double 4NT Pass 4Ƈ* All Pass 6ƅ 15-17 Transfer Maximum, three-card support with 2 top honours Last Train

With trumps 3-2 6ƅ was cold so Vitas advanced to the final – or did they? The Swedes protested that West’s bidding was influenced by a comment made at another table that had been clearly overheard. After much debate (the final decision was only announced the following morning) the result was allowed to stand. On the way back from Tromsø (where there were rumours that one of the Israelis had been called a cheat in a bar) I was shown this deal and the video that goes with it: Netherlands v Israel European Championships 2014 38

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Dealer North. None Vul.

Ƅ4 Ɔ KQ2

Ƈ A Q 10 9 8 ƅ KQ96

Ƅ 987 Ƅ 10 6 3 N Ɔ J 10 9 7 6 5 Ɔ 84 W E Ƈ7 Ƈ J532 S ƅ J 10 4 ƅ A7 3 2 Ƅ AKQJ52 Ɔ A3 Ƈ K64 ƅ 85 West

1Ƈ 2ƅ 2Ɔ 3Ƈ 4Ɔ 4Ƅ 4NT 5Ɔ

North

East

Verhees Schwartz Van Prooijen – 1Ƈ* Pass Pass 2ƅ* Pass Pass Pass 3Ƈ* Pass Pass 4Ƅ* Pass Pass 5Ɔ* All Pass 12-21, may be longer clubs May be longer clubs than diamonds Fourth suit forcing Longer diamonds Cue-bid Cue-bid Rolling Denies first-round club control

South Fisher 1Ƅ 2Ɔ* 4Ɔ* 4NT* 6Ƈ

An opening bid of 1ƅ would be 12-21, possibly with longer diamonds. South asked to see West’s hand on his side of the screen before play started. He therefore knew that he held a singleton in the trump suit, and it suggested that he transmitted this fact by signalling (pulling down his sweater several times). Several world-class players have been engaged in try to ‘break a possible code’ and they now suggest that the ‘sweater signal’ indicates that an unexpected play will be necessary to pick up a bad trump break. East led the ace of clubs and continued with the two, declarer winning with the king. After cashing the ace of diamonds, he ran the ten, picking up East’s trumps. Now, you can watch the video of this deal. It is here, I suggest you start watching at about 18 and a half minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHDSvRJkv6I&app=desktop Is there anything suspicious? Is it strange that South is wearing an extra layer of clothing? It was hot in Opatija and the bright lights in the BBO rooms added to the heat. South has seen West’s hand and knows about the trump position. As you might expect, declarer takes a long time to play to trick three. Did declarer take the winning view in trumps because he had received a signal from partner, or 39

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate was it because by leading the ace of clubs East suggested he might have a potential trump trick? Following Boye’s initial post Larry Cohen becomes the voice of reason with some well-chosen comments: I don’t think it is so hard to catch cheaters at the top level. It always starts with “whispers.” All the well-documented cases (where there was eventually proof ) started that way. Clean pairs need not worry – there isn’t “whispering.” I’ve played hundreds of boards against the top pairs with nary a concern. They make the right shift when they should (good bridge logic/expertise). They get things wrong when they have no reason to get them right. Yet, when a top pair gets too many things right, their peers take notice. Whispers start and then boards get recorded and discussed. If the pair in question is really clean, they should be able to explain their actions. A panel of players with multiple national championships, good ethics, and good analytical skills would be able to analyze data and draw the right conclusions. (No ACBL officials, board members, or directors unless they are “top-100” bridge analysts). The pair in question gets to provide their complete case. If on Board 3, they shifted to a club (when the indicated expert play was a spade), they could say why they did so. On Board 8, if they led a heart (when no expert would do so), they could explain. They could also show that on Board 14 they balanced aggressively and it was wrong. (State of the match matters: they could not cite a wrong “guess” on Board 60, up by 120 IMPs.) If on dozens of relevant deals an expert player makes repeated extreme bids/leads/plays and has no rational bridge explanation, something is wrong. If they are unexplainable actions (“non-expert bridge”) then something is fishy. A world-class player (capable of winning Spingolds) might make an egregious error (perhaps one or two in an entire week). It is not possible for such a player to make 10-15 of those inexplicable plays in a week. Really. Beyond a reasonable doubt. And if you think there is a 0.0001% chance it could happen, and then the same thing happens at the next tournament, then it is 0.0001% x 0.0001% – which multiplies out to “impossible.” This isn’t akin to a lucky lead and some mathematical simulation – “well, it can happen 6 times in a row based on pure odds/luck so it is 63:1”  This would be a Spingold Champion making multiple inexplicable bridge plays (“lucky” errors that hit partner). Such players aren’t able to honestly win multiple National Championships. To the lawyers: Let’s use common sense here. First of all, when a player enters the event, they need to waive any rights to sue. They have to concede their rights in such matters. If an expert panel finds suspicion and bars them, so be it. No legal recourse. The pair in question gets to present their case –and explain every single deal in question. I don’t think it is possible that an esteemed expert committee with dozens of deals of evidence could get it wrong. This is not a “slippery slope” or opening a “can of worms” (which I’ve read in other posts). Innocent pairs need not worry. With proper evidence submitted and a qualified panel, justice should soon follow. Shortly after this Boye makes some revelations: (Boye’s team had apparently won their quarter-final by 1 IMP but then lost 2 IMPs in a hotly contested appeals committee, where the claim was that a ‘forcing pass’ in a complex auction had not been alerted.) “If we had won the committee, I would have gone to bed, slept for a few hours, fought hard against Lavazza in the semis win or lose and moved on (probably not noticing much about what went on at the other table in the match). What happened now after losing by 1 IMP, I slept only two hours before waking up. I went to the BBO to see what had happened at the other table. It was Pandora’s Box.” Some of you might recognize my name after the earthquakes in the bridge world the past 40

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate couple of weeks. For those of you who don’t know me: I am 42 years old, married with two kids (10 and 1 year old). I live in Flekkefjord, Norway and grew up in a small town nearby called Moi. My grandparents taught me bridge when I was 8 years old, and I have loved the game ever since. I am an editor and owner of a bridge magazine, write a daily bridge column in Dagbladet and have played for the Norwegian Open Team since 1996, winning the Bermuda Bowl in 2007 and the European Championships in 2008 as the very highlights. I have played in American Nationals since 1999 and have won a few North American Championships. For the two previous cycles I played in the Schwartz team with Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz as team mates. Our captain Richie Schwartz played with Allan Graves. In five of the six Nationals I partnered Espen Lindqvist, and in the last I played with my former partner Erik Sælensminde. Team Schwartz won the 2014 Spingold, the 2014 Reisinger and the 2015 Jacoby Swiss, in addition to other good results. I felt I had a good relationship with the young Israelis that joined the Schwartz team in the Summer of 2013. They seemed likable guys, though they were quite different; Lotan brash and outspoken, while Ron was more humble and quiet. We went to lots of dinners together, with Sushi as my and Lotan’s favourite. In April this year I played with Lotan in the Yeh Bros Cup in Shanghai in the Vitas team. We were friends. I heard cheating rumours about this pair from many people. My general impression is that there is very little ‘plain-out-cheating’ anyway in bridge (only against an Indonesian pair many years ago I felt “stolen” from, but Norway still prevailed in those matches), so I didn’t believe (or wanted to believe) that my team mates and friends would be up to something. If I knew I just wouldn’t have continued playing with them. I also encouraged them to keep their game totally clean and to go out of their way to avoid further rumours. Bad ethics, though, I have experienced on numerous occasions, but that’s a different breed. Of course we should all try to play up to our highest standard – this is actually something that Espen and I focus on – but in a partnership game like bridge you will always be faced with some sort of a grey stone. So why didn’t I refuse to play with Lotan and Ron with all these rumours swirling? Well, I like to judge characters on my own. Give people a chance to prove themselves different than what some people claim. In bridge there are many “circles” within the professional circus, and each circle seems to have some rules for themselves and other rules for the rest of the world. That’s not right. Nobody is above the game. Because of the rumours I did my own little investigation from time to time. When their action(s) didn’t fit my bridge logic, I asked them: “What was your logic on this hand?” They always had a quick answer, but their responses still kept me on my toes. Before presenting certain hands from this year’s Spingold and a couple of other events, I would like to put attention to how I think we need to go about to catch world-class cheaters in bridge. If you knew a couple of card tricks when you were young or maybe how to make a coin disappear – would you then be able to break Harry Houdini’s secrets? I think it is better we ask David Copperfield how Houdini made his magic tricks. Even if the rest of the world can’t spot it, I am pretty sure that Mr. Copperfield could have told us a whole lot about the logic behind Houdini’s illusions. If you haven’t seen it already, please take some time to read Larry Cohen’s suggestion on how to catch world-class cheaters at Bridgewinners.com. Soon the IBPA-editor John Carruthers will have an editorial where he encourages a WADA of bridge, in a similar fashion like Cohen suggests. Bridge is such a logic game that I am willing to claim that it is almost impossible to cheat against your peers at the top level for long. Provided we have a mechanism to look into the logic of mysterious hands that occur. As of the moment the ACBL, the EBL and the WBF are looking 41

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate into reported hands, but the chances are slim that they will catch sophisticated cheaters. They neither have the resources nor the expertise to do these kind of analysis. They might brag about how they got the doctors (forgetting to mention it was way overdue). But how really did the doctors get caught? It was Eddie Wold, a top-class and highly experienced player, who broke their code. My approach to discover cheating by world-class players is to look at non-obvious actions and the success rate of these. If you take 100 boards where Versace, Helgemo and Hamman were faced with the same problem, how many non-logical actions do you think they would choose? My guess is none. So when players and pairs choose non-logical actions, which in addition have a great success rate (the actions are deemed as non-logical because you would expect them to have a lot worse success rate than 50%), we should raise an eyebrow. The proof is in the pudding. Here is a hand from the Spingold Final in 2014: What would you lead as North?

To me the bidding calls for an aggressive lead. You would need less in spades (the queen being enough) to set up a trick. Here a spade lead would be an even greater success as you hit your partner with the ace to defeat the contract. Ron Schwartz chose a heart from four small and declarer had 13 easy tricks. His reasoning? “It’s dangerous to lead away from kings against a slam”. Another peculiar lead in my view came in the quarter-final of the same Spingold:

42

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Open Room Board 23 South opened 1ƅ and West’s 3NT ended the auction

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/ tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=34624 My take on the situation is that your biggest chance to set the contract is an immediate beat in hearts. You sure need to be lucky with the layout in hearts for this to succeed, but you need to be even luckier with the layout in other suits for those leads to be right. Ron led a club, which you can see hit his partner really well, but the patient died as declarer had plenty of tricks in diamonds and spades. “Why did you lead a club?” I asked. “I have to lead my partner’s suit,” he responded. Your partner’s suit, I was thinking. Opening 1ƅ might be as few as two cards in your system (and even 3+ wouldn’t make it “partner’s suit”). So how did he know it was his partner’s suit? The third “weird” hand which springs to mind is from the Reisinger last year:

43

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Open Room Board 20 (East opens 2ƅ and West responds 2Ƈ)

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/ tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=36757 What would you lead with the North hand? Without the double I would choose between hearts and spades. I’d probably go with a spade as I have one less card in that suit and partner therefore is more likely to have spade length (and honours). With one more card in hearts it is also more likely that a second heart trick could be ruffed by declarer. But after the double I would for sure lead a club. What else does partner’s Lightner double call for? By passing we would have around a 50% shot of beating it, and by doubling he can get me to find the “impossible” club lead when that’s right. Bridge is such a logical game. In a heartbeat Ron Schwartz led a heart to beat the contract by one trick, plus 200. A great result for the Schwartz team, and the Israelis saved half a point (Board-a-Match) as BrogelandLindqvist also overbid to 6Ƈ. “What was your logic behind the heart lead, Ron?” “We have an agreement to lead hearts in these situations.” Wow! That’s news. And the next time when partner has the same holding (ace-king) in spades, would they change their agreement or would they come up with some other plausible explanation? (A more common agreement is to lead the higher-ranked major suit when in doubt.) Before I go into depth about what happened in the quarter-final match between Schwartz and Cayne I would like you to consider the concept of “chance” or “likelihood” of something happening. This is often what’s thrown back at you when you try to connect a dubious action with cheating; it’s just one board – you would need a whole lot more boards to prove that they are cheating. Well, you pick up this hand:

Ƅ K Q J 10 9 Ɔ xxx Ƈ Kx ƅ xxx

The opponents bid 1NT on your right and 3NT on your left. What would you lead? 44

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Not that difficult, was it? If you line up a million (1,000,000) bridge players – or even a billion (1,000,000,000) of them – we would all lead the king of spades unless we pulled the wrong card or a card fell out of our hand. If you were number 867,354 in that line of bridge players and you led the king of diamonds, I would say you lost your mind (and some of us in that line would probably be raving lunatics). But if you at the same time hit your partner with AQJxx of diamonds I would say that you are a cheater. This is just not happening. Unless you have some extra information which you are not entitled to. All cheating is bad, but when you do it at the top level and with sophisticated methods it’s destroying the game. The top level is our window to the world and it’s where we can show how great a game bridge is to new generations. When a pair which is almost as good as the other pairs gets a huge edge by cheating, they can hardly be beat. The other world class pairs will recognize this because you can’t beat bridge logic. When the governing bodies, which are supposed to work in the best interest of the game, don’t do anything to solve the problem, what would happen? Why would you or I bother to go to these tournaments where we can’t win? And who wants to put their everything into a game where you know you can only fight for second place unless you cheat yourself. And when other players/teams cheat, why shouldn’t you be allowed a short cut or two? (Now Boye turns his attention to the dramatic events surrounding the appeal) 1.30 AM, Saturday the 15th of August. Lotan Fisher runs out of the appeal committee room and screams loudly as he passes me in the hall. I look into the appeal committee room and see two guys that I really like; Allan Graves and Richie Schwartz. They are spaced out after a long day and a long night. Allan scratches his head and can’t believe that we just lost 2 IMPs on the appeal to lose the match by 1 IMP. When the Chairman of the committee, Joel Wooldridge, is asked how the appeal could turn out this way, this is some of his response: “We tend to believe people.” Losing small is the worst to me. Because even if you have played a terrific day of bridge you could still have nipped it if you just played a little bit better. Espen and I had a good day against Lauria-Versace (three sets) and Cayne-Seamon (one set, which was very pleasant and with Jimmy playing really well). Still Espen and I could have done a couple of things better, and Espen was really disappointed with himself not having seen the squeeze in 5ƅ on board 28 where Jimmy found a good defence. Except that we were almost card perfect (the way I look at bridge) so it was a good day at the office. Except for losing. I wasn’t able to sleep until 5AM and woke up again at 7AM. I decided to go onto my computer to have a look at what had happened at the other table (Allan and Richie played set 2 and set 3 against Fisher-Schwartz, while Huub Bertens and Dan Korbel played the Israelis in the last quarter). I went to Allan and Richie’s BBO table for the second segment in the match, and to me it didn’t seem like they were on top of their game. They were handing away too many tricks in declarer play and defence, but luckily there weren’t too many crucial hands. Then I looked at the third segment in the match (same table) and saw this deal:

45

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Board 2 Closed Room

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/ tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=40395 What would you lead with the North hand? It’s not the most challenging lead, and I would guess 99 out of 100 experts would lead the jack or ten of hearts depending on the honour lead agreements. Ron Schwartz led a club, which I still haven’t found any other expert to do. If partner had a heart honour, I would say that Ron was number 57 in that line of 100 experts and just made a creative lead. When partner turns out to have two small hearts I get suspicious. Let’s jump to the semi-final the next day when Cayne plays Lavazza. What would you lead with the East hand here: Board 5 Closed Room

46

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/ tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=40423 Again, my guess is that 99 out of 100 experts would lead a heart as you normally need something good to happen to beat the contract when they have stopped in 2 NT after an invitational sequence. (The jack of hearts being first choice for many, but personally I would have gone with a low heart in case there is a stiff queen of hearts in dummy and partner has Ax.) Ron Schwartz selected a small diamond. Again, if Lotan Fisher would have had a heart honour I would think Ron was number 69 in that expert line and just found a sexy lead. This time around Lotan was void in hearts. (The reader may have deduced that Boye is suggesting that the defenders are signalling which suit should be led on numerous occasions.) Back to the third segment of the quarter-final where this hand caught my eye: Board 12 Closed Room

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/ tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=40395 Alfredo Versace led a spade against me to Lauria’s ace. I won the spade return, cashed ace-king of clubs, played a diamond to the ace, ruffed a diamond, went to dummy with the 8 of spades and ruffed another diamond. On my last trump I pitched a heart in dummy so that an opponent with queen-jack of hearts and the fourth diamond would be squeezed. Versace shows me his hand and says no squeeze. He already knows my hand for this play – bridge is a logic game. At the other table Allan Graves leads a low club which Lotan wins in his hand. Having only one side loser Lotan decides to play the queen of spades from his hand (he can afford two trump losers). The jack pops from Allan and Richie wins the trick with the ace. Richie continues with the deuce of spades, and Lotan (after some consideration I believe) decides to go with restricted choice so he plays low from his hand. When Allan gets in on his ten of spades, an apparently frustrated Mr. Fisher slams his cards back in the board pocket at the table. He doesn’t show any cards, nor does he make a statement of how many tricks he is making. Allan now asks Lotan how many tricks he made, and Lotan says “All”. I guess Allan’s body language expresses that he would like to see declarer’s cards as Allan has a couple of red honours in his hand. Lotan takes his cards out of the pocket and shows the hand 47

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate to Allan. It’s a very simple hand – there is one more loser – so the BBO operator writes 10 tricks, plus 620 to the Cayne team and 1 IMP to the Schwartz team. Lying in my bed at the Congress Plaza I take a look at Espen’s scorecards from the day before (I hardly ever score myself ). Soon I find the scorecard for the third session and can see that we scored the 4Ƅ contract as a push! Which means that the match actually should have been a tie after the 2 IMP change from the appeal! Could there be more IMPs floating around? 7.30 AM I call Richie at the Hilton and ask him to get the team together to look through the hands. With only two hours sleep (I am not sure how many hours the rest of the team was able to sleep) it goes much slower than usual to go through hands. We decide to call Matt Smith to check if there is something which can be done with the missing IMP. At the same time we search for more hands which could have been mis-scored and we also call various members of the Cayne team. Would they give us some extra boards as a gesture of fair play? Matt Smith looks into the case together with another TD, and he says that this issue has to be solved by them (the TDs, i.e. the rules of the game). The two teams in question cannot decide to play extra boards in the spirit of the game. Close to noon we get the final message; it’s too late to change the score. We lost. At the third floor where the TDs have their base I meet Lotan next to the elevators. I ask him about what really happened regarding his misclaim and tells him that this does not look good on him. “I misguessed trumps and miscounted my tricks in frustration. I made a mistake. It happens.” “No, Lotan, you never make these kind of mistakes.” I compare it to the Nunes defense against a slam with two aces where Nunes went for a ruff before cashing the other ace. It just doesn’t look good in the public eye. “Do you call me a cheater?” is his response when he feels pressured. “No, I didn’t call you a cheater, but this does not look good.” So what really did happen that made Lotan “Con Man” Fisher “miscount” his tricks at the same time as Allan didn’t see that he had one more trick coming in 4Ƅ? Well, now that I get his mind set, please join me to think outside the box. Some (or many?) of Lotan’s friends (and maybe himself included) think he is the best player in the world. He has a quick brain with a high IQ and doesn’t need to look more than a second or two at a hand like this to see that it will be 10 or 11 tricks depending on the number of spade losers (you even have a chance to make the contract with spades 4-0 behind you). Lotan also knows very well that restricted choice is a better chance when the jack (or ten) pops under the queen. So why did he need some time to consider his move? If you were able to get into his head, I am pretty sure you would see that he was planning ahead if the spade lost to Allan’s 10. Just think about it; by putting all the cards back in the slot you really have no downside. Either your opponents check the number of tricks available and you get 620 (as you would anyway, except if lefty switches to a heart from an honour) or you con them into accepting 650. Just one IMP, but in a tight match like this every IMP counts. So why didn’t Allan spot the obvious third loser? “I showed him my hand,” Lotan cried. “What more could I do?” (When he talked to my wife on the phone, Lotan claimed the same “truth” and “apologized” for the “misclaim”. And he did the same stunning act as he did in front of the TDs: “I want to play extra boards! I don’t want to win this way!!” Nice guy. Well, isn’t the old trick of hiding one of your losers behind another card the most likely reason for this illusion? At this point I get furious. What a piece of …. I decide to find Eddie Wold who caught the Coughing Doctors to see if he has some advice for how we can get this pair. Eddie is playing in the Swiss (which became a three-day event at this Nationals so the teams eliminated in the quarter finals of the Spingold were not accepted in the tournament). We play in a Bracketed two-day KO in the basement, and I ask our captain to get the afternoon session off. I have more important things to do. 48

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Eddie is still playing and I run into Bobby Levin in the ballroom. The first thing he says is: “Did you see how they cheated you yesterday?” I guess he has seen the non-heart lead against 1NT with Ƅ10xx ƆKJ109x ƇJ ƅQ8xx, and I am about to tell him about the “misclaim” in 4Ƅ. Then he says: “That 5ƅ hand, did you see it?” It looked like this: Board 22 Closed Room

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/ tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=40388 So against 5Ɔ – they are red you are white – you lead the king of clubs and get the 8 from partner (upside-down count) and declarer follows with the 4 of clubs. What would you do at trick two? Well, I would expect declarer’s distribution to be 4=6=2=1 since he bid 5 over 5 opposite an invitational hand by partner. If he’d had 4=5=3=1 or 3=6=3=1 it seems clear to double (or pass). To switch to a spade is highly risky if declarer has ƄKJ9x ƆAQ9x ƇAK9x or ƇKQJx. It would just let the contract through. So for a world class player it’s extremely logical – totally clear that is – to switch to a diamond (you cannot afford to play a passive club in case declarer has ƇKQJx or is able to scoop the spade suit for three tricks). Versace, Helgemo and Hamman will all switch to a diamond. Every day in the year. So would Lotan Fisher – though he is definitely not the No. 1 in the world, I will give him a World Class rank – unless he had some extra information. Lotan switched to the 10 of spades. His partner took the king and ace in the suit and gave Lotan a spade ruff. Two down. Easy game. Well, let’s go back to the bidding. What would you have done with the North hand over an invitational bid of 3Ɔ from West? I guess pass is a good alternative since partner couldn’t act over 1 heart white vs. red. Especially if you are quite a conservative player, like Ron, you may choose not to enter the bidding with that hand. But let’s say you have an “I feel lucky-day” and double for take-out. Next hand raises to 4Ɔ and you hold the South hand. What would you bid? I guess most experts (all that I have asked, and that isn’t a few) if they act with a bid instead of a double would bid 4NT for the minors. That way you get diamonds into the picture in case your partner has 4=1=5=3 or even 5=1=5=2 (when he chose to double instead of bidding 3 spades). 49

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate You really don’t have to be afraid to end up in diamonds with fewer trumps than in clubs as most world-class players have the agreement that they bid the lower suit with equal length. Lotan Fisher bid 5ƅ, and some of his Israeli entourage explained to me that he bids like that because he likes to play the hands. Lotan would probably give the same macho answer, but there could be more to it than that. A world-class player would hardly bid 5ƅ unless he had some extra information. Ok. So the contract is 5Ɔ and you lead the ace of clubs. If North was Agustin Madala or Thomas Bessis he would throw the queen of clubs (partner must have at least five clubs for the 5ƅ bid) to make sure that partner shifted to a spade. When you have some other “gadgets” you don’t need to find these fine bridge plays to get partner to do the right thing. And then the grande finale – the spade 10 continuation. This is a pretty telling board. So you need to make the right bidding action (doubling 3Ɔ or passing; close call I guess), you need to bid 5ƅ (non-logical), you don’t make the “bridge play” by dropping the queen of clubs under the ace (to make sure you get the spade shift) and you switch (non-logical) to the 10 of spades (a defense you are way too good to do if you just used bridge logic). And of course; your non-logical defense was spot on hitting your partner with the hand of your dreams! Get a statistician to do the numbers. Walking to breakfast the next morning, it dawns on me; they must be knowing the number of clubs in their partner’s hand. That’s why Lotan could bid 5ƅ at ease. That’s why Ron could lead a club from ƅJxx against 3NT finding his partner with ƅKQ109x. And that’s probably why this board went wrong for them in the Spingold semi-final against Lavazza: Board 17 Closed Room

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/ tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=40419 What would you bid over 1Ƅ? Some of you would probably think 2NT is the normal bid with 5-5 in the minors. It might be for you, but not for a world-class player. Your partner is a passed hand so the upside for a partscore your way is relatively small. By bidding 2NT you would also tip off the opponents to how to play the contract either in a part score or a game. And there is a risk for going for a number 50

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate with a 2NT bid. If partner has 2-2 in the minors (or even 3-2 or fewer minor cards) you might be going down a few doubled even without your opponents having a game. And if you are quite a conservative player like most of the Israelis are (including Lotan), 2 NT is just not the bid for you in this situations. Lotan still bid 2NT. Why? Well, if you know that your partner has four clubs (and maybe also a reasonable hand) 2NT is more or less safe and you will soon get to the right level to compete for the contract. 3Ƈ from Duboin was an invite with spade support, but what does 3Ɔ mean? That’s pretty clear for a passed hand; 5 cards hearts and good support for one of the minor suits. Like the hand Ron had (though it didn’t need to be quite as strong). So why did Lotan pass 3Ɔ and give lefty an opportunity to defend a 5-1 fit (rather than a 5-4 fit)? When you cheat at bridge, you have to get into a different mindset than that of a normal bridge player. All the time you would have to consider your actions so you don’t blow your own whistle. Let’s say you have ƄKQJ109 Ɔxxx ƇKx ƅxxx and the bidding goes 1NT on your right and 3NT on your left. Then you get (an illegal) signal from partner that he’s screaming for a diamond lead. What would you lead? If you are not (totally) stupid you would still lead the king of spades. Leading a diamond and beating the contract when partner actually has ƇAQJxx is just not worth it (unless someone put a gun to your head) since it will be the last bridge hand you play. Everyone would know that you were cheating. Don’t we have to look for more hands? No, we just have to throw these guys out of the game and never invite them back. So I think Lotan senses that this could be a telling hand if he bids over 3Ɔ. Did he forget that partner hadn’t opened with a preempt? Unlikely, so a player of his format should know that partner has a minor fit. Maybe he thought he didn’t need to “reveal” that he already knew how many clubs partner had by bidding to the 4-level. It seemed likely that Duboin would compete with 3Ƅ, and then Ron could bid 4ƅ. When Duboin passed instead, it was eggs on Lotan’s face. Here is an extremely accurate defense from the fourth quarter: Board 24 Closed Room

51

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/ tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=40400 2Ɔ promised at least 4-4 in the majors and 3-11 hcp. Against 5ƅ doubled you lead the ace of spades. Partner gives you an encouraging 4 of spades – definitely promising the queen) and declarer follows. How do you continue? It looks normal to continue with the king of spades and then decide where to go from there depending on which spade partner plays and what card declarer follows with. The only time you might have to do anything else than leading a third round of spades is if declarer has 10-9 doubleton in spades. If that’s the case partner will help you with a suit-preference signal on the second spade (the seven for hearts and the five for diamonds). If partner has a diamond honour you switch to a low diamond and can always set up whatever diamond trick(s) you have (if declarer plays a spade from dummy partner has to cover with the queen to avoid declarer pitching a diamond loser). After a long thought, you decide to play a low spade. That’s just a crazy play. By spending quite a bit of time finding the spade shift you have given away a lot of UI (unauthorized information) and partner wouldn’t really be allowed to put up the queen (because what would you have played with ƄAx after partner gave you an encouraging spade at trick one?). Well, Ron puts up the queen of spades with ease at trick two. What would you switch to? You could argue that a partner underleading the spade would have something in diamonds, but couldn’t it also be that he needs a heart switch for this defence to cut down communications to dummy and kill the diamond suit in dummy? Anyway, Ron decides to switch to a low diamond. A cold-blooded defence as you could come up with hands where declarer has a stiff king of diamonds and actually makes the contract. Declarer misguesses in diamonds, and Ron and Lotan collect 500 after a double-dummy (but not the most ethical) defence. Are they that “good”, were they just lucky with the layout or did they have more information about what the hand looked like for whatever reason? So let me present the last hand of this article, the infamous appeal: Board 24, Closed Room

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/ tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=40388 52

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate The screen is set up so that South and West sit at the same side of it, and North and East. The tray is at the North-East side of the screen for a long time after the 3Ƅ bid. We (Team Schwartz) could argue that it wasn’t clear who was thinking. It could have been the 4Ƅ bidder. Sure, and he did think a bit, but when the tray is away for two-three minutes it’s much more likely that it is East thinking about what to do over 4Ƅ. Which were the facts. So the tray comes back and Allan believes he has a hand that is worth 5Ɔ when Richie didn’t double 4Ƅ. This is a typical “logical alternative problem” where you cannot choose to bid on if that bid may be influenced by partner’s hesitation. After Lotan protested on the 5Ɔ bid, the tournament directors asked ten top players what they would bid with Allan’s hand. Nine of them bid 5Ɔ and the director let the result stand. To me, and I also spoke to Maurizio di Sacco, Chief Tournament Director at the WBF, about this, a logical alternative is something which is on your radar, a bid you may consider at the table. If ten out of ten bid 5Ɔ with a 60/40 ratio over passing out 4Ƅ, pass is definitely a logical alternative. So personally I wouldn’t let Allan bid 5Ɔ here if the ACBL and the WBF have the exact same rule in these situations. Team Cayne appealed the TD’s decision on this board and the appeal started around midnight. Allan and Richie were present for Team Schwartz while Lotan and Ron were present for Team Cayne. During the appeal there was thrown another point in from Lotan: He had alerted partner’s pass over 5Ɔ and told Allan, his screen-mate that this pass was forcing. At the other side of the screen Ron did not alert his own pass. Lotan claimed that when their opponents were not in a forcing auction, his and Ron’s system agreements was that that created a forcing pass for them. Some might have that agreement when they are red vs white, but to have that agreement as a general principle seems peculiar. To state that this is the case without presenting any evidence through their system notes (they play quite a simple system and doesn’t have much written about forcing passes) seems even more peculiar (it wouldn’t surprise me if a sophisticated system suddenly appeared, but I haven’t found anything searching the Internet). So why could this have anything to say for the appeal anyway – the appeal committee did let Allan bid 5Ɔ. Well, Richie mentioned something about that his pass over 4Ƅ was forcing (if this was what he really thought at 1 AM or it was a bit of a self-serving argument I don’t know). This statement Lotan was quick to jump on: “When the opponents have established a forcing pass, our forcing pass is off.” Wow, they always seem to have a very specific agreement without more than their reputation to back it up with. If Lotan had known that the opponents were in a force, his and Ron’s forcing pass would be off. Therefore he would have passed out 5Ɔ and it would have been a flat board instead of the 2 IMP loss. Well, I don’t think so. Knowing this guy has an arsenal of tricks in his sleeve I believe he already knew it was not a forcing-pass situation for him and partner. By volunteering to tell Allan that partner’s pass was forcing he actually got a three-way shot: 1) If Allan’s bid of 5Ɔ is not legit (there is a logical alternative) it will be ruled back to 4Ƅ. 2) If Allan’s bid of 5Ɔ is legit (there is not a logical alternative) it will probably make and 5Ƅ will be a good save if Ron makes at least nine tricks. 3) If I can convince my left-hand opponent that this hand belongs to us, we might even escape undoubled in 5Ƅ. At 1.30 AM the appeal committee bought Lotan’s story and The Cayne Team was through with 1 IMP. “We tend to believe people.” Me too, but not these guys. A number of Videos are posted here: http://bridgecheaters.com/?page_id=18 53

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate On a lighter note, Micke Melander points me to this spoof on Amazon: How to cheat at Duplicate Bridge http://www.amazon.de/dp/B0147FXBPE/ref=cm_sw_r_fa_ask_An1sJ.778E9P8 Then comes an announcement from the ‘accused’: From Lotan Fisher’s Facebook Page:

Press Release Bridge champions Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz embark on an international legal battle to clear their names. Fisher & Schwartz hired an international legal and professional team, which will unveil the persons and interests behind the attempt to implicate them with false accusations. In recent days, following a series of impressive and unusual professional success, Mr. Lotan Fisher and Mr. Ron Schwartz, both prominent Bridge champions, have found themselves in the middle of a false and harsh smear campaign, which is orchestrated by several of their rivals in the competitive Bridge field. Other than several clips which were published online, both Fisher and Schwartz have no knowledge of the nature of the accusations and are both determined to prove their innocence. Fisher and Schwartz have announced today (Monday) that for the time being and in order to prevent any shadow over their successes, they will not compete as a pair. However, the couple wishes to reaffirm that they will both continue to play bridge as teammates both in official and private tournaments. In addition, Fisher and Schwartz will fully cooperate with any examination and will argue their case against any accusation which will be presented to them. Fisher and Schwartz are fully convinced that justice will prevail and their innocence will be proclaimed shortly. To facilitate that, Fisher and Schwartz have hired Adv. Dror Arad Ayalon, former Chairman of Israel’s Bar Association’s Ethics Committee to lead an international legal and professional team – which will disprove any false accusations, and in addition will disclose the persoN/S and interests behind the heinous attempt to implicate them. As to the accusation made by Mr. Brogeland – the Fisher-Schwartz legal team responded as follows: Mr. Brogeland’s accusations are not only paranoid and false, but are also a crude attempt to spin the facts. Despite the great damage Mr. Brogeland inflicted not only to the good names of Mr. Schwartz and Fisher, but also to their livelihood and careers, he now attempts to portray himself as the “innocent victim”. The truth is that the only thing Mr. Brogeland has to fear about – is the legal and professional consequences of his actions, in which the first step will be an imminent law suit.” Almost immediately after this I get a message from Micke Melander informing me that Swedish World Champion Per-Ola Cullin has discovered a ‘code’ that the Israelis are using. When I contact him he sends me this: (I have added in italics observations made by Kit Woolsey, starting with this introduction.) Here is a board-by-board breakdown of what I observed from the video of the Israel-Norway match in the 2014 European Championship.  This was a good match to illustrate, since Fisher-Schwartz were on defense 10 of the 16 hands.  I will be adding in information from other matches when I get the chance. I think it is very important to observe not only what Fisher-Schwartz are doing when they are giving a signal, but what they do when they are not giving a signal. This gives us a comparison against their normal behaviour. A change in mannerism may be an indication of what mechanism they are using for signalling. 54

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate For example, I noticed the following: When the final pass was made on Schwartz’s side of the screen, he and his screen mate would scoop up their bids and then Schwartz would shove the tray over to Fisher’s side. This is all routine – everybody does this. Next, Fisher and his screen-mate would scoop up their bids. Again normal. What would happen now with most pairs would be that either the tray is left alone, maybe a slight shove into the centre of the table, or perhaps it is picked up at that point. But with Fisher something very unusual happens: When Fisher was on opening lead, he would always give the tray a big shove to get it to the other side of the screen. This wasn’t a little shove. It was the type of shove one would normally make during the auction when the tray is being moved to the other side. Apparently he felt he needed to do this so Schwartz would be able to remove the tray and give the lead signal. This happened only when Fisher was on opening lead.  Under other circumstances, he would either do nothing or pick up the tray himself. Another point: On all of the 6 hands where Fisher-Schwartz were declarer, Fisher was the one who removed the tray – even when the tray landed on Schwartz’s side of the table. There is nothing unusual about that – in fact, it is normal for one member of the partner to be the designated tray remover. But what is very important to notice is that on all of these hands Fisher placed the board right in the centre of the table (the normal board placement). On the hands where Schwartz was on opening lead, Fisher never placed it there unless giving a diamond signal. I’m sure there are other changes in mannerisms which can be spotted by careful watching of the videos. When a consistent pattern is found, that will be an indication of a signal being given. It wouldn’t surprise me if Cullen was able to break their code by first noticing such changes in mannerisms. Two of the video posts on www.bridgecheaters.com contained the question “How did they find the heart lead?”. I noticed RS placing the board under the screen in a peculiar spot prior to LF’s lead on both these boards. It prompted me to view the entire matches between Israel – Norway, Israel – Netherlands and Israel – Monaco in the 2014 European Bridge Team Championship. These are my findings. All boards where RS – LF were on lead are accounted for.

Israel – Norway https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuztBesThD4 http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/ tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=34336 Board 17 The contract is 1NT by E. The auction is missing on BBO and I can´t make it out from the video. LF’s side remove their bids last, but the tray is still pushed back to RS’s side. RS removes the tray and places the board under the screen close to the corner. He holds ƄAK6 ƆK953 Ƈ7542 ƅ102. Board 17: (Note: this board was incorrectly recorded in BBO VuGraph but a commenter found the correct deal; see comments.) East is declarer in 1NT. Fisher is on lead. The tray was on Fisher’s side of the screen after the bids were scooped up, and Fisher shoved the tray over to Schwartz’s side of the screen–the pattern I noticed when Fisher is on lead and the tray ends on his side. What followed was very interesting. At 10:40, the East defender grabbed the tray before Schwartz could get his hands on it. You can see Schwartz reaching for the tray but being a little slow. However that didn’t stop Schwartz. As East was pulling the tray in preparation for lifting it, Schwartz took the board out of the tray.  That is a very unnatural thing to do. Normally the player who removes the tray is the one who places the board back on the table. The board was placed in the heart-signal position. What Schwartz should signal for is unclear between a heart or a club.  But a heart looks like a 55

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate reasonable choice since it is a 5-card suit.   Fisher led a heart.  Summary: A heart signal was observed, and third hand might reasonably signal for a heart lead with this hand. (Running total: 1/1) Board 19 From what I can tell the auction is 1Ƈ by LF then 1NT-2Ɔ*-2Ƅ by the opponents. LF removes the tray and places the board on his side, invisible to RS. He holds Ƅ1065 ƆA8 Ƈ98764 ƅAKQ. The operator apparently missed the auction. For West to be declarer at 2Ƅ with South being the dealer, I would guess the auction went: 1Ƈ-1NT-P-2Ɔ*-P-2Ƅ-P-P-P. Schwartz is on lead. The tray is on Schwartz’s side of the screen after the bids are picked up. At 30:50, Fisher removes the tray. Note how Fisher’s hand is hovering over the tray while waiting for the bids to be picked up on the other side. Fisher places the board close to him. That is the club signal. With Fisher’s hand he clearly wants a club lead. Schwartz overrides and leads a diamond anyway. That is logical. Schwartz holds QJx of diamonds and J10x of clubs, and leading a club from that hand after partner opened 1Ƈwould look very strange. In addition, a diamond is probably right even knowing that partner prefers clubs. Summary: A club signal was observed, and third hand clearly wants a club lead. (Running total: 2/2) Board 23 The contract is 6Ƅ. LF removes the tray and places the board under the screen close to the corner. His only honour is the heart ace. Schwartz is on lead. The tray is on Fisher’s side of the screen after the auction is over. At 67:44, Fisher removes the tray. Fisher places the board in the heart-signal position. Fisher clearly wants a heart lead. The opponents are in a slam, and his whole hand is the ace of hearts. Now comes a surprise. Schwartz has a very reasonable and probably normal heart lead even without a signal. Instead, Schwartz chooses to make a very risky underlead of Kx of clubs. Why did he do this? Perhaps he missed the signal, although from looking at the video the signal seems to be very clear. Perhaps he simply had a flight of fancy. We will never know. This was the only board from the set where the actual lead appears to be in complete conflict with the signal. Summary: A heart signal was observed, and third hand clearly wants a heart lead. (Running total: 3/3) Board 24 The opponents bid 2ƅ-2Ƈ-2NT-3NT. RS removes the tray and places the board under the screen close to the corner. His hand is Ƅ3 ƆAJ643 Ƈ962 ƅQJ53. Fisher is on lead. The tray is on Schwartz’s side of the screen after the auction is over. At 72:05, Schwartz removes the tray. Schwartz places the board in the heart signal position. Schwartz definitely wants a heart lead. After 90 seconds of thinking, Fisher leads a heart. Boye asks the question: What do you think was Fisher’s reason to lead a heart? This looks like a very unfair question to me. The heart lead is quite reasonable. I know that I would lead a heart unless my table feel told me that LHO was stretching for his 3NT call. I am probably in the minority of experts here, but I would bet it is a sizable minority. Questioning the heart lead from a bridge point of view is simply out of line. Boye then asks the question: Why did it take him 90 seconds to do so (which the video confirms is 56

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate the case). That is a much more meaningful question. We have all seen this position a thousand times. This is not an auction which involves some deep inferences to be drawn. Any expert will lead either a heart or a spade, but whichever they choose that choice will be made in a matter of seconds. Yet Fisher, who normally leads fairly quickly, took a huge amount of time before leading the heart. I would guess his thinking was as follows: The spade lead is the normal and obvious lead (which it isn’t, of course). If I lead a heart quickly and strike the gold I expect to strike, that will look suspect. So I will take a long time before leading the heart, which will look less suspicious. In fact, the long huddle had the opposite effect. If he had found the heart lead in normal tempo attention wouldn’t have been called to the hand. Summary: A heart signal was observed, and third hand clearly wants a heart lead. (Running total: 4/4) Board 25 LF leads immediately. Fisher is on lead. Fisher makes the final pass. At 78:30, he scoops up his bids as does his screenmate. In the following order and in one motion, he then bangs open the screen, pushes the board across (Schwartz and his teammate haven’t even picked up their bids yet), and tables his opening lead. He held a 3-3-4-3 Yarborough, and Schwartz had opened the bidding 1Ɔ. Fisher’s lead was a heart, of course. He could see that he would always be leading a heart regardless of the signal, since anything else would look super-suspicious if it hit gold. So he acted in a way which prevented his partner from giving a signal. Summary: No signal was given. The auction and opening leader’s hand made it clear that a heart must be led. (Running total: 5/5) Board 26 LF opens 1Ƅ and the opponents bid to 5Ƈ, his partner having doubled a 2Ƈ overcall. LF removes the tray and pushes the board under the screen so that it´s almost entirely on the other side. His hand is ƄKQ1094 ƆK104 Ƈ106 ƅKQ6. Schwartz is on lead. The tray ends on Schwartz’s side of the screen. At 81:50, Fisher is quick to grab the tray and remove it. It isn’t totally clear that Fisher would want to give a signal, but if he chooses to do so it would definitely be for a spade. Fisher places the board well over on Schwartz’s side of the table. This was the only signal we have for a spade lead this set. The hypothesis about the spade signal had been something different, but I’m pretty sure that what I am seeing here is the true spade signal. Others can perhaps verify or discredit this by looking at other videos. Schwartz leads a spade. It is his normal lead. Summary: A spade signal was observed, and third hand clearly wants a spade lead. (Running total: 6/6) Board 27 LF opens 3ƅ and the opponents bid to 4Ƅ. LF’s side remove their bids last, but the tray is still pushed back to RS’s side. RS removes the tray and places the board under the screen close to the corner. His hand is Ƅ1095 ƆKQ8642 ƇA3 ƅ53. Fisher is on lead. The tray ends on Fisher’s side of the screen. He shoves it over to Schwartz’s side. At 87:58, Schwartz removes the tray, and places the board in the heart signal position. Schwarz clearly wants a heart lead. Fisher leads a heart. From his hand any of his 3 suits could be right, but a heart probably wouldn’t be the popular choice. Summary: A heart signal was observed, and third hand clearly wants a heart lead. (Running total: 7/7) 57

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Board 28 The opponents bid 1mi-1Ƅ; 2Ƅ. LF removes the tray and places the board on his side, invisible to RS. LF’s hand is ƄQ32 ƆJ73 ƇQ10 ƅK9876. The operator missed the auction. From looking at the hands and watching the video, I believe the auction was: P-P-1ƅ-P;1Ƅ-P-2Ƅ-P;P-P. At any rate, West is declarer in 2Ƅ. Schwartz is on lead. The tray ends on Fisher’s side. At 90:57, Fisher removes the tray. Fisher places the board well on his side of the screen, which is the club signal. It isn’t totally clear, but Fisher probably would want to signal for a club lead. Schwartz leads a club. The club lead IMO would not be a popular choice from his hand. Summary: A club signal was observed, and third hand may want to signal for a club lead. (Running total: 8/8) Board 29 The opponents bid to 5ƅ after RS having opened and rebid diamonds and LF having bid 1Ɔ and later supported diamonds. LF removes the tray and first places the board in the middle under the screen, then a couple of seconds later moves the board close to the corner. His hand is Ƅ765ƆK1063 ƇJ9732 ƅ6. Schwartz is on lead. The tray ends on Fisher’s side of the screen. At 97:23, Fisher removes the tray. This one is a little confusing. Initially Fisher puts the board in the centre of the table, the signal for a diamond lead. After about 10 seconds, he moves the board over to the heart signal position. Two seconds after he does this, Schwartz makes his opening lead. It isn’t totally clear what Fisher should be signalling for, but most likely it would be a heart. Schwartz led a heart. That looks like a very dubious lead on his hand and the auction. Summary: A diamond, then heart signal was observed, and third hand may want to signal for a heart lead. (Running total: 9/9) Board 31 The opponents bid 1ƅ-1Ƅ-2Ɔ-3NT. No one removes the tray. LF is on lead and RS holds ƄQ6 ƆQ10432 ƇA932 ƅ82. Fisher is on lead. The tray ends on Fisher’s side of the table. At 108:02, Fisher shoves the tray to Schwartz’s side. Schwartz does nothing for a few seconds. Fisher then does the following in quick succession: Leads face down, opens the screen, removes the tray, places the board in the center of the table, and turns over his opening lead. Schwartz had a hand on which I would have signaled for a heart lead.  But it isn’t clear, and giving no signal is quite reasonable. Summary: No signal was given. Third hand may want to give no preference for a particular suit. (Running total: 9/10) Conclusion This is a lot of work, but I think the end result makes it worth the effort. In 9 of the 10 defensive hands in this set, third hand was able to give his partner a signal by the position of the board.  (On the 10th hand, opening leader led before any signal, since he knew from his hand and auction that only a heart was a reasonable choice.)  In all of these hands, the signal was reasonably to strongly correlated with the contents of the hand. I am hoping that other Bridge Winners readers will put forth the effort to do the same thing for other matches which we have videos of Fisher-Schwartz. It isn’t sufficient to demonstrate that when Fisher-Schwartz are on lead the partner of the opening leader is always the one who removes the tray. They will agree that this is true, saying that they do this intentionally. The opening leader is concerned with his opening lead and doesn’t want to be bothered by removing the tray, so his partner does the job. This argument sounds rational. In order to build a 58

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate solid case we must make it absolutely clear that the signals are being given. This can only be done by going through every board in detail as I have done here. It is very important that we get this right. We must build an air-tight case here, one for which there cannot be any possible doubt even for a person who isn’t a bridge player. This is the way we will clean up the game. Boye has gotten the ball rolling, and it is our job to complete his work.

Israel – Netherlands https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHDSvRJkv6I Board 2 The bidding goes 2ƅ (5+Ƅ and 4+ƅ or 6+ƅ) – 4Ɔ by LF – 5ƅ – X; all pass. RS removes the tray and places the board on his side, invisible to LF. His hand is ƄKQ54 Ɔ95 Ƈ954 ƅKJ76. Board 4 The auction goes 4Ƈ – 4Ƅ – 5Ƈ – 6Ƅ; pass – pass- 7Ƈ – X; all pass. LF removes the tray and places the board on his side, invisible to RS. His hand is Ƅ653 ƆKJ Ƈ5 ƅAKJ9754. Board 5 The opponents have an artificial auction to 4Ɔ. No one removes the tray. LF is on lead and RS hand is ƄJ105 Ɔ3 ƇK10872 ƅK1073. Board 8 RS opens 1Ƈ and the opponents bid to 4ƆX. RS removes the tray and places the board under the screen at the center of the table. His hand is ƄA104 Ɔ3 ƇAK542 ƅ10862. Board 13 The opponents bid to 3ƅ in a highly competitive auction. No one removes the tray. LF is on lead and RS holds ƄA7 ƆQ1087 ƇK1083 ƅA73.

Israel – Monaco https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj66nTvvgVk Board 1 4Ɔ uncontested. LF removes the tray and places the board under the screen at the centre of the table. His hand is Ƅ75 ƆJ98 ƇKQ1065 ƅJ82. Board 3 Bidding is 1Ƅ-3Ƈ-3NT by the opponents. No one removes the tray. RS is on lead and LF’s hand is ƄK10962 ƆK75 Ƈ72 ƅ854. Board 5 3Ɔ in a contested auction. No one removes the tray. LF is on lead. RS, having opened 1ƅ, holds ƄK65 ƆQ87 ƇK7 ƅAJ1042. Board 6 5ƅ after RS having overcalled 2Ƅ on the 2-level in a forcing auction. No one removes the tray. RS hand is ƄAKQJ103 ƆQJ108 Ƈ108 ƅ7. Board 7 RS opens 1Ƈ in 3rd seat, LF responds 1Ƅ and it goes (pass) – pass–(X) – pass – 2Ɔ all pass. LF removes the tray and places the board on his side, invisible to RS. His hand is Ƅ9753 ƆK86 Ƈ10953 ƅA8. 59

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Board 8 and 9 Leader holds AK of a suit and leads immediately. Board 11 After a 1NT-opener opponents end up in 4Ƅ after TRF followed by 3NT. LF removes the tray and places the board under the screen at the centre of the table. His hand is Ƅ7 Ɔ10972 ƇQ8654 ƅA42. Board 13 4Ɔ. LF removes the tray and pushes the board under the screen so that it´s almost entirely on the other side. His hand is ƄAJ95 Ɔ97642 Ƈ102 ƅ54. Board 14 LF leads immediately with an, IMO, obvious passive lead. Board 15 2Ƅ after a contested auction. No one removes the tray. RS is on lead. LF holds ƄA87 ƆK83 ƇA764 ƅQ92. Out of the 48 boards I watched, LF-RS were on lead on 26 of them. On 11 of these the tray is not removed prior to the lead. - On 4 of these 11 LF leads immediately leaving no time for signals, twice holding AK of a suit, once holding an obvious passive lead and once his partner´s opening suit in a slammish auction by opps. - On 6 of these 11, the partner of the opening leader holds a hand with no clear lead preference. - On 1 of these 11 (Board 6 in the Monaco match), the partner of the opening leader holds a clear spade preference. On the other 15 boards, the tray is removed prior to the lead being made. Always by the partner of the leader (PotL). - On 3 of these 15 boards, the board is placed where it´s supposed to be, in the centre of the table. In these cases PotL holds a diamond preference. - On 2 of these 15 board, the board is pushed under the screen to leader´s side. PotL holds a spade preference. - On 5 of these 15 boards, the board is placed invisible to the leader. In these cases PotL holds a club preference. - On 5 of these 15 boards, the board is placed in the corner of the screen. In these cases PotL holds a heart preference. The mathematical chances of my observation´s occurring by chance must be infinitely small. My assessment is that the strength of this evidence goes well beyond a reasonable doubt. I asked a friend to check the Israel – Hungary match.

Israel - Hungary European championships 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ƅuQHkbuoiE http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/ tools/vugraph_linfetch.php?id=34211 (Again I have added Kit Woolsey’s observations in italics. Editor)

Board 1 Ron open 1ƅ, then opps show Ƈ+Ɔ and bid to 5Ɔ. Ron is on lead. Lotan waits for Ron to take off the tray and does it himself finally after the lead. Lotan’s hand: ƄQ10972 Ɔ9 ƇQ632 ƅ1093. Ron had an obvious lead with AKQJ6 of clubs. 60

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Time: 8:23. Schwartz on lead. Tray ends on Schwartz’s side. Fisher grabs the tray and starts to remove it. But Schwartz leads before Fisher has a chance to place the board. Schwartz has an automatic lead from AKQJx of clubs. Board 3 Ron opens 3Ƅ in 3rd seat favourable. They overcall 3NT, all pass. Then Lothan leads a heart from Ƅ3 ƆA10863 Ƈ8732 ƅ743. Ron’s hand: ƄQJ10852 ƆKQ75 ƇJ54 ƅ-. (17 min) Ron took off the tray and put the board where Lotan couldn’t see it. After the lead, he instantly moves it to the corner of the opening (which looked like a really weird unnatural move) Time: 17:02. Fisher on lead. Tray ends on Fisher’s side. Fisher shoves tray to Schwartz’s side. Schwartz removes tray and places board on his side of the screen (club lead). Simultaneously with Fisher leading, Schwartz moves board to corner (heart lead). Schwartz clearly wants heart lead. He has opened 3Ƅ on ƄQJ10852 ƆKQ75 ƇJ54 ƅ- and got a 3NT overcall. Fisher leads heart from Ƅ3 ƆA10863 Ƈ8732 ƅ743. This was the prediction I missed. What I think happened is that Schwartz simply made a careless mistake with his initial board placement. He was trying to correct it, but he couldn’t correct it in time. However, Fisher had a hand where he knew a club couldn’t be right anyway, so he made his more natural lead of a heart. Board 4 Opponents bid to 6NT. Lotan’s only points are the jack of clubs and KJx of diamonds. Ron has a rather normal diamond lead from Ƅ94 Ɔ108 Ƈ98632 ƅQ543. Lotan put the tray in the middle of the table, a little bit under the screen Time 25:58. Schwartz on lead. Tray ends on Fisher’s side. Fisher removes tray and puts board in centre of table (diamond lead). Contract 6NT, Fisher clearly wants a diamond lead. His hand is: Ƅ10865Ɔ976ƇKJ7ƅJ82. Schwartz leads a diamond from: Ƅ94 Ɔ108 Ƈ98632 ƅQ543. (Having spent some time studying the Bird/Anthias books on opening leads a diamond looks the normal action. Editor) Board 5 Can’t see the exact bidding but opponents bid 3NT. Most likely weak NT-stayman-no major-3NT. Lotan is on lead with ƄJ1097 ƆK ƇA10742 ƅ532. Ron has Ƅ43 ƆQ9865 Ƈ65 ƅKQ107. Ron leaves the tray on the table and Lotan takes it off after he lead a diamond. Time 31:32. Fisher on lead. Tray ends on Schwartz’s side. Schwartz doesn’t act immediately. Contract 3NT. Schwartz has two possible suits he might choose to signal for. Fisher leads quickly from his 5-card diamond suit. Board 6 Weak NT- GF stayman, and opener showed 4Ƅ and 4Ƈ and the other one signs off in 3NT. Ron only has 2 jacks and does not take the tray off. Lotan leads a heart from ƄK76 Ɔ10642 Ƈ85 ƅA873 Time: 44:57. Fisher on lead. Tray ends on Schwartz’s side. Schwartz doesn’t touch the tray. Contract 3NT. Schwartz has: Ƅ952ƆJ95ƇJ972ƅ1065. Fisher waits a bit, and then leads from one of his two 4-card suits. Board 7 Lotan has Ƅxxx Ɔ109xx Ƈxx ƅK10xx. Ron has overcalled 1Ɔ on ƄQ1074 ƆAK865 Ƈ73 ƅ65. Opponents bid 3NT. Lotan’s lead. He puts the board in the corner. Time: 49:11.Fisher on lead. Tray ends on Fisher’s side. Fisher removes the tray himself, and leads. He has an automatic lead vs. 3NT, holding 10932 in his partner’s overcalled suit. 61

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Board 10 Ron Ƅ97 ƆA ƇAQ10962 ƅ10854. Lotan ƄQ83 ƆKJ976 ƇJ53 ƅJ3. Ron has bid diamonds. Opponents play 2Ɔ. Lotan is on lead. Ron does not take off the tray. Lotan leads his partner’s suit. Time: 1:06:52. Fisher on lead. Tray ends on Fisher’s side. Fisher shoves tray to centre of table. 3 seconds later Fisher leads. It is an obvious lead in the suit Schwartz has shown. Board 11 1Ɔ-P-1NT-x-P-2Ƈ-P-2NT-all pass. Lotan is on lead with ƄAJ8 ƆQ9653 Ƈ874 ƅKQ. Waits a long time but Ron does not take off the tray. Ron has ƄKQ10 Ɔ108 ƇQ1053 ƅJ1032. Finally he leads a heart. Time: 1:15:25. Fisher on lead. Fisher shoves board to Schwartz’s side. Schwartz takes no action. Contract is 2NT with Fisher having opened 1Ɔ. Schwartz holds: ƄKQ10 Ɔ108 ƇQ1053 ƅJ1032. Fisher makes normal heart from 3-5-3-2 shape. Board 12 Opponents bid 1Ɔ-2NT-3Ƈ-3NT-4Ɔ. 2NT was some kind of heart raise, 3Ƈ presumably shortness and 3NT unknown. Lotan has ƄAJ104 Ɔ9 ƇQ532 ƅK1092. He puts the board so far over the screen that the opponents put it back. Ron leads a normal spade from ƄQ9852 Ɔ74 ƇK64 ƅJ85. Time: 1:20:15. Schwartz on lead. Tray ends on Schwartz’s side. Fisher grabs tray, removes it, and puts board on Schwartz’s side of the screen (spade lead). Contract 4Ɔ. Fisher clearly wants a spade lead. Fisher holds ƄAJ104Ɔ9ƇQ532 ƅK1092. Schwartz leads a spade from: ƄQ9852 Ɔ74 ƇK64 ƅJ85. Board 14 RHO opens a weak NT in 3rd seat. Ron knocks on the screen before Lotan gets a chance to do anything with the board. He leads a spade from ƄK9874 ƆKQ5 ƇA6 ƅQ73 Time: 1:27:59. Schwartz on lead. Tray ends on Schwartz’s side of the screen. Fisher grabs tray, removes it, and starts to put the board down. Schwartz leads before Fisher has a chance to put the board down. Schwartz has a routine spade lead vs. 1NT opening from ƄK9874 ƆKQ5 ƇA6 ƅQ73. Board 15 Opponents bid 4NT (both minors)-5ƅ. Lotan quicky leads the ace of spades from AK (and ace of hearts). Time: 1:33:33. Fisher on lead. Tray ends on Fisher’s side of the screen. Fisher shoves the tray to the centre of the table and leads instantly. He has an AKxx suit to lead from vs. a 5ƅ contract. The President of the ACBL, Suzi Subeck posts this: “As ACBL President, I have been asked to make a statement regarding the recent accusations of unethical behavior by a well-known expert pair. I am going to weigh my words carefully because ongoing ethics investigations within the ACBL, by their very nature, must be kept private until the charges are heard by an official committee and a verdict is rendered. Public accusations of cheating may result in a violation of the ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations. “The ACBL has been reviewing several allegations of unethical behaviour at the highest levels since early this year. We have been aided by high level players who have volunteered countless hours researching and evaluating hands, looking for evidence of collusive cheating. We appreciate all the assistance we have received and will issue proper thanks in due time. “I am in the process of expanding and formalizing an expert review committee to assist us going forward. I initiated discussion of this with Larry Cohen (see his post for more information) prior to the NABC in Chicago. I am hopeful that this committee will become a permanent part of the ACBL Oversight structure. “Any player who has evidence of unethical behaviour by another player should complete a player memo and submit the information to Sam Whitten, ACBL National Recorder. These reports are NOT 62

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate being ignored and will be carefully considered. Multiple reports involving any one pair will trigger an investigation. “Please understand that saying more at this time should be unnecessary and would be careless.” Meanwhile it is clear that other people have been stirring their memories:

The Maze of Fisher/Schwartz Ishmael Del’Monte Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the maze of Fisher-Schwartz. I want to show you some things that will blow your mind! These hands are all from the 2011 Transnationals Final vs. Australia. They sat N/S as usual. In 48 boards, how bad could it be? First, opening lead problems: Set 1 of 3. Board 4.

Ƅ A 10 8 5 Ɔ 642 Ƈ A3 ƅ A7 5 3 West

–

North –

East

3Ƅ

South

All Pass

What’s your lead? Schwartz led theƆ4 from 642. Partner’s hearts were AK753!

63

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Is this just lucky or is there more involved? Board 12.

Ƅ 542 Ɔ J9752 Ƈ5 ƅ KQ65 West

1Ƈ 3Ƈ

North 1Ƅ Pass

East

Double* 3NT

South

2Ƅ All Pass

What’s your lead? Lotan not only found a club lead, but the ƅQ lead, on a hand where partner is likely to be shorter in clubs. Is it still a surprise that partner had AJ72 of clubs and J10763 of spades? (The convention card shows the queen as possibly being from ƅKQxx. In the other room South led the Ƅ5. Editor)

Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz 64

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Set 2. Board 4

Ƅ Q 10 9 8 3 2 Ɔ 10 9 5 Ƈ A 10 8 ƅ9 West

Pass 3NT

North

2Ƈ* All Pass

East

2NT

South 3Ɔ*

What’s your lead? Lotan led a spade. Your partner has shown a vulnerable weak 2Ɔand you have 109x hearts but that’s not good enough to lead a heart against 3NT?? On the previous hand at favourable Lotan did not open a Multi with Ƅ97 ƆJ107642 ƇQ54 ƅA4 so one can only imagine his suit was not good enough?

65

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Board 11

Ƅ A 10 6 Ɔ KQ952

Ƈ 64 ƅ 10 8 4 West

– 1ƅ Pass 3ƅ

North

– 1Ɔ 2Ɔ All Pass

East

– Pass Pass

South Pass 2ƅ* Pass

What would you lead? What if you knew partner had good diamonds? Yep, Schwartz led the Ƈ6. Still lucky? Set 3 of 3. Board 18.

66

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Ƅ AQ 8 6 Ɔ 10 8 Ƈ J954 ƅ A6 5 West –

North –

East

South

East

South

1NT

All Pass

What would you lead? What if I told you partner held ƅK10874? You guessed it! Lotan led the ƅ5 from A65!

Board 24.

Ƅ6 Ɔ J 10 8 6 3

Ƈ K 10 9 8 4 ƅ Q3 West 1ƅ 3Ɔ*

North Pass Pass

1Ƅ 4Ƅ

Pass All Pass

What would you lead? They led ƆJ: Naturally partner held ƆAK72 and a singleton diamond. Strange bidding decisions occurred from the same match which suggest knowledge of range:

67

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Set 1 of 3. Board 1.

Ƅ 98 Ɔ 753 Ƈ J5 ƅ J98764 West – 5Ƈ

North Pass ?

East 3Ƈ

South 4Ƈ*

What’s your call? North doubled, a very strange double on two jacks at the five-level as a passed hand. They show on their system card that they play forcing pass if they bid a vulnerable game, but here, this is a passed hand opposite a non-vulnerable Michaels bid and an unlimited 5Ƈ bid on your right. Double was not alerted as showing a weak hand.

68

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Set 2 of 3. Board 1.

Ƅ KQJ84 Ɔ A9 6 Ƈ A9 6 ƅ AQ West

– Pass Pass

North Pass 2Ƅ 3Ƅ

East

2Ɔ Pass Pass

South

Double 3Ɔ ?

What’s your call? South passed, very conservative bidding by Lotan with 20 points and 5 spades. I don’t know about you, but when I bid 3Ɔ here, my most likely hand is a very good hand with 3 spades. He never really showed his spade length and managed to stop in 3Ƅ. Was it just luck that partner only had 3 spades and 3 points?

69

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Set 2 of 3. Board 7.

Ƅ Q62 Ɔ Q72 Ƈ 64 ƅ AQ J 7 2 West

North

East

South ?

Both vulnerable, would you open? Say you pass, I wouldn’t but some would. 1Ƈ on your left, 2Ƈ Michaels from partner and 3Ƈ on your right. What would you bid now? Where would 3Ƅ rank on your list of possible bids? What if you intended on selling out to 4Ƈ? How can South bid like this after passing?! Not bidding a vulnerable game after partner shows Michaels is astonishing. Of course partner happens to only be 5-5 and 7 points. Well judged Lotan. At least we were spared the Ron heart lead against 3NT-X on this bidding!

70

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Set 2 of 3. Board 9.

Ƅ A9 3 2 Ɔ6 Ƈ J 10 9 8 5 ƅ 974 West –

North 1Ƈ

East 1Ɔ

South ?

What’s your call? Lotan selects 2Ƈ. It takes a special “talent” to bid 2Ƈ when holding A932 in the other major. Here it was not important as partner had a minimum opening. (1Ƈ promised at least two diamonds, might be longer clubs, 12-21. I would double on the grounds that if we have a double fit we might at the least have a good sacrifice over a possible 4Ɔ, but if you double and the next hand bids 4Ɔ you can hardly bid 5Ƈ. The defence to 4Ɔ was interesting. South led the jack of diamonds and North elected to win it with the ace and returned the seven. Declarer could win, draw trumps, ruff a diamond and play a spade to the ten, establishing ten tricks. If North had made the routine expert play of putting in the queen of diamonds at trick one there would have been two entries to the South hand for club leads and the contract would have failed. Editor)

71

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Set 2 of 3. Board 15.

ƄK Ɔ KQ4 Ƈ AK 8 3 ƅ KQJ86 West

– Pass 3Ƅ

North – 1ƅ ?

East – 1Ƅ

South Pass Pass

What call do you make? Schwartz passed. Schwartz bids just once with his 21 points and his partner has a crappy four-count. It’s been an enlightening trip, I hope, but here I must take leave of you. I’m hoping now that you will be able to find your own way through the labyrinth of Fisher-Schwartz. A few days later this appears:

Breaking the Code

Ishmael Del’Monte Since Boye brought the Fisher-Schwartz scandal to the world’s attention, I have been going over VuGraph matches looking for more incriminating hands. They aren’t hard to find. A few days ago I received a phone call from Peter Bertheau informing me that Per Ola Cullin had broken the code about opening leads, and it was time to shift my focus to verifying his findings by analyzing video of their matches. Per Ola discovered that F-S were using the tray and board to indicate preferences on opening lead. Leaving the board on the tray indicates no real preference of lead (or preference for the opening bidder’s suit if his partner is on lead). Specific suit leads are requested by taking the board off the tray and putting it in a certain place on the table. Spades: The board is pushed toward the opening leader. Hearts: The board is placed on one side of the table. Diamonds: The board is placed in the middle of the table. 72

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Clubs: The board is kept on the side of the non-opening leader. Now that I had something concrete to work with, it was time to put it to the test. I decided to analyze a 15-board segment from the 2014 European Championships. I chose one F-S played against Helgemo-Helness of Monaco, since I thought that would be entertaining. There were dubious actions on all but three of the boards. I found evidence to support my previous discoveries of ways they are conveying information, mostly during the auction. They make audible signals (such as coughing and drinking water) to indicate weakness. This usually happens only when partner is in the auction, not when both of them are passing.  They convey length in partner’s suit after they have shown weakness based on the speed at which they bid: slow means no support, while bidding fast shows support.  When they are declaring, they can ask partner to find out about the trumps for them (see board 12). As declarer they can indicate that they have a problem, so dummy can get up from the table and try to help.  

At 8.54 Fisher quickly takes the board off the tray and puts it in the middle of the table to ask for a diamond lead. Poor Schwartz has ƇA842 and feels he can’t really lead a diamond on the first board against Monaco when he has a completely normal club lead. So he thinks for 1.5 minutes and at 10.29 eventually makes the normal lead of a club. Helgemo makes 7 and at the end of the hand at 11.59 Fisher looks very surprised. After looking stunned and annoyed at 12.12 he leans under the table to talk to Schwartz for about 7 seconds complaining about something he did, or as we know, didn’t do. At 12.30 Fisher again says something to Schwartz and waves his hand as if to say “Why?”

73

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate

Shortly after passing the tray at 12.55, Schwartz takes a loud drink of water at 13.07; you can clearly hear the water bottle. This occurs while Fisher is thinking over what to do over 1NT. Fisher ends up declaring and the board finishes without incident.

Schwartz is on lead at 19.10 but Fisher is 5323 with 5 spades so he doesn’t touch the tray or board indicating no preference. Therefore Schwartz leads from his 6-card club suit, only hesitating a few seconds to see if Fisher gives a signal.

74

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate

Fisher has 4 points and does not do anything to show it before the auction. The auction proceeds (1ƅ) X (2ƅ) P; (3ƅ) X (P) 3Ƈ, Helgemo passes at 23.14 and now Ron starts thinking. After 10 seconds Fisher clears his throat and goes for the water and spends the next 8 seconds mildly coughing to show he has a weak hand; at exactly the point of the last cough, 23.34, Schwartz quickly passes! (Having passed over the first double it is clear that South must have a very weak hand, so why would North have anything to consider? Editor) With Fisher as declarer at 23.45 Helgemo is asking Fisher questions and he now makes some very obvious coughs including the exact same one as the last one which Schwartz acted on and passed. He coughs for 5 seconds here, which is to distract from the earlier coughing.

At 32.14 Fisher goes to lead and then stops and puts the card back. He was about to lead too quickly and Schwartz may not have had time to signal. Then 8 seconds later when the board is left on the tray indicating no preference, Fisher then leads the obvious ƄQ. 75

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate

Helness opens 1ƅ and Fisher passes quickly. Then while Helgemo is thinking at 36.50 Fisher whips his scoresheet from behind the bidding box and puts it on the table and starts writing. This always comes before a cough and is an attempt to try and distract from the cough. After 10 seconds Helgemo bids, and as Fisher passes the tray through at 37.04 Fisher coughs twice indicating a weak hand. After the tray comes back at 37.27 (with a very weak push by Schwartz) Fisher takes it towards him and starts asking Helgemo questions. At 37.42, 14 seconds after the tray comes through, Fisher finds the pass on his 2-6-2-3 two count! The pause is to show no fit for partner. The tray gets pushed through at 38.54 and Schwartz takes all of three seconds to pass when he has a pretty decent hand! Pass may be logical but not as quickly as Schwartz did. Helness bids and this time Fisher passes very quickly. The normal lead on this auction is a spade, so Schwartz leaves the board on the tray indicating no preference.

At 42.04 Fisher quickly pulls the board towards him indicating he wants a club lead. Oops! He nearly forgot to signal there! After Schwartz thinks for 15 secs Fisher moves board back to centre 76

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate of the table. At 42.41 Schwartz leads the ƅ10. (If you are unwilling to lead a spade on this auction–and I would be reluctant to do so – then the obvious alternative is a club. Editor)

At 45.06 Schwartz coughs lightly and picks up his water bottle from the floor to his right for a drink. Weak hand partner! The tray comes through at 45.17 and Schwartz, with his terrible four-count starts thinking! He takes 12 seconds to make his pass. The auction continues and this time when the tray comes through at 45.43 it takes Schwartz 2 secs to pass. This quick pass is a signal that he has three trumps although he is very weak. When the tray comes through at 46.10 it takes Fisher less than two seconds to bid 3Ɔ on a hand very similar to what Schwartz held on board 6.   Fisher on lead has a very easy ƆK lead and immediately leads it without waiting for a signal at 47.36. This avoids a signal and the possibility of getting caught.

77

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate At 49.57 the tray gets pushed to Fisher who responds 1NT and Helgemo overcalls 2Ƅ. Now at 50.12 you can see Fisher again goes for the scoresheet which he might believe will hide the obvious cough he is about to make and does so twice at 50.14 and 50.15 and follows it with another clearing the throat type of noise at 50.18. At 51.37 Fisher goes to take the board and pull it towards him to ask for a club; however, Schwartz has ƆAK and immediately leads without waiting for the signal. Of course, the defence is easy but especially so as Schwartz already knows Fisher likes clubs. Schwartz leads ƆK and takes little time to find a club switch.

Nothing seemed to happen and a quick 4Ƅ was bid by F-S.

H-H bid quickly to 4Ƅ and Fisher shows no preference by leaving tray on the table with the board on it at 1.09.35. Schwartz leads the Ƈ10 after about 10 seconds.

78

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate

Fisher only has 5 points here but their range for really weak hands is 0-4. Also as 5-point hands go, opposite a takeout double of 1Ƈ, this is not too bad with both majors and working honours. (1Ƈ) X (3Ƈ) P (P) to Schwartz, who thinks from 1.16.16 to 1.16.54 and then makes a second double. Fisher then thinks from 1.16.58 until 1.17.4 and bids 3Ɔ, ending the auction. In the play Helgemo leads a club at 1.18.00 and Fisher goes to play by pointing at a card at1.18.18 and then stops and taps the board with his first two fingers of his right hand. This is an “I need help partner!” signal, usually in the trump suit. Fisher often tugs at his shirt when he is dummy to alert his partner when he sees his opponents’ cards and trumps are bad. (This parallels what you can see in the video of the match against the Netherlands. Editor) Twelve seconds later Schwartz gets up and leaves the room. Fisher does not play a card until 1.20.40, over 2 minutes later, about 5 seconds before Schwartz comes back to the sit down. Fisher was waiting for Schwartz to come back and give him a signal about the trump suit. I am sure that this hand would not take a worldclass player that long to play at trick 1. The play after Schwartz was back took less than 2 minutes.

79

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Here Schwartz passes and Fisher takes about 20 seconds and opens a strange 2Ƅ showing majors and Helgemo overcalls 3Ɔ natural. Then the tray gets pushed through at1.23.32 and Fisher coughs to show minimum at 1.23.33. Schwartz then makes a conservative 3Ƅ call and passes out 4Ɔ quickly after Fisher coughs quietly at 1.24.28. Then at 1.24.37 Fisher pushes the tray towards Schwartz who then of course finds the spade lead. (I don’t see anything strange about 2Ɔ – on the convention card it is described as 4+4+ majors, 3-11. I find it surprising that North did not open 1ƅ. Editor)

Not much happened here and it didn’t matter what was led.

Another boring hand bidding-wise, but Fisher leaves the board on the tray showing no preference at 1.38.06. At the end of the hand note that Fisher was very upset with Schwartz. Probably about the lead 80

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate chosen. (If he cared so much, he should have signalled what to lead!)

A boring auction to 3NT by F-S. I encourage other people to watch the videos of other matches on YouTube and on Boye’s site and see if their actions are consistent with those described here. You can replay these deals at: http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?linurl=http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/ vugraph_linfetch.php?id=34308 The link to the video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj66nTvvgVk Amidst all this comes a dramatic posting by Leslie Amoils (Vanderbilt winner in 2012):

Israel – do the right thing! Like many of the things I do at and away from the bridge table, I am sure that I will come to regret this, but here goes. The issue of whether Israel should compete in the Bermuda Bowl is starting to bubble on many threads, and I am sure it will be a hotly discussed issue in the forthcoming days so here goes: I am an extremely proud Jew (though not very religious) and love Israel and most Israelis with a passion. Although I do not live in Israel, I have family there so spend a lot of time in this very special country. One of the very many reasons for this, is that, Israel, in the face of much criticism, I believe always sticks by its principles and morals regardless of world opinion and collateral damage that this may cause. So, regarding this issue, this is my strongly held viewpoint: Did Fisher Schwartz cheat in the European championships in which they qualified for the Bermuda Bowl? If so, and this certainly seems to be the case, they clearly do not deserve to benefit from this. Therefore, they should not compete, and urge the IBF to withdraw from the BB, or failing that, and perhaps even better, I urge the members of the Israeli team to voluntarily withdraw. If they do not do what I consider to be the right thing, then the WBF should step in and not allow them to compete (again, all this is predicated on whether FS did or did not cheat) Furthermore, I believe the following too: 81

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate Did the IBF know, or should they have known that FS were cheating? (before the European Championships) or that there very strong reasons or evidence that this might be the case? If this is so, then I believe Israel should be banned from international competition for a period of time (somewhere between 1 and 5 years) Israel and Israelis, I implore you. You have always been a shining light in this dark world, do not extinguish the flame now. While it will hurt in the short term, it will be another example of Israel leading the world, and set a precedent to the rest of the bridge world to help clean up our beautiful game. From a bridge lover, a proud Jew and a lover of Israel, and of free speech Leslie Amoils (not in hiding yet) http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/israel-do-the-right-thing/ This appeared on Ron Schwartz’s Facebook page: Bridge champions Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz demand public apology and US$1,000, 000 in compensation from the mastermind of the smear campaign against them. The Fisher & Schwartz legal team has presented Mr. Boye Brogeland with a warning letter before the Instituting of Legal Proceedings. Since his loss in the Spingold quarter-final competition which was held on August 14 2015, Mr. Boye Brogeland has embarked on a smear campaign in which he systematically disseminate offensive defamatory statements against Bridge champions Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz. In this smear claim, Brogeland is disseminating claims according to which Fisher and Schwartz are cheats, who win games by way of improper means. To combat and disprove the Brogeland smear campaign, Fisher and Schwartz have hired Adv. Dror Arad Ayalon, former chairman of Israel’s bar association’s ethics committee to lead an international legal and professional team – which will disprove the false accusations. The first step of the legal team was presented yesterday (Monday) in which the Fisher & Schwartz legal team has presented Mr. Boye Brogeland with a Warning Letter before the instituting of Legal Proceedings. The letter stipulates that considering the heavy damages which have been caused to Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz due to the actions of Mr. Boye Brogeland, and in order to reduce their damages and to make any court application unnecessary, Mr. Boye Brogeland is demanded to take the following actions: 1. To stop all actions on his part which are harmful to my Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz, including publication of any claim which is defamatory against them. 2. To remove the designated internet site, and to ensure that the site will not be quoted nor will appear in any search engines. 3. To immediately publish a correction, denial and apology. 4. To compensate Fisher & Schwartz in the sum of one million dollars. I sent a message to Ron Schwartz pointing out that in 1965 Bridge Magazine gave Terence Reese the opportunity to comment on some of the reported deals and was happy to make the pages of the magazine available to the Israelis. However, I received no response. However, Ron & Lotan launched a facebook page where they comment on some of the deals: https://www.facebook.com/cleanbridge1?fref=nf What would happen next was anyone’s guess, but a key question was whether all or any of the WBF, the EBL, the IBF and the ACBL would start official enquiries? Part of the answer to that question came at the beginning of September when the Israel Bridge Federation (IBF) announced that a special committee would be created in order to examine the 82

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine

 Intermediate various allegations of irregularities spread on the Internet against the Israeli pair Fisher-Schwartz. This Ethics Committee would be headed by David Forer, current head of the IBF’s court: a respected lawyer and a bridge expert as well. Other members are: Asher Axelrod, Modi Kenigsberg, Eitan Levy, Adrian Schwartz. That was followed by a letter to the WBF and the EBL by the President of the IBF: “Dear Gianarrigo and Yves, “On the 26th of September 2015, the Bermuda Bowl competition will take place, to which the Israeli team achieved an entry ticket as the 2014 European champion. “The 2014 champion team members were Lotan Fisher, Ron Schwartz, Alon Birman, Dror Padon, Ilan Herbst and Ophir Herbst. “The designated team for the Bermuda Bowl comprises of the same participants with the exception of Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz who waived their participation in the Bermuda Bowl, due to previous commitments to participate in the Transnationals competition taking place at the same time therefore were replaced by Udi Friedlander and Inon Liran. “In light of the recent events and the resulting acrid atmosphere with regard to the legitimacy of the Israel team’s participation in the Bermuda Bowl, the IBF together with the 2 pairs (Padon – Birman and the Herbst brothers) decided to withdraw our right to participate in the upcoming Bermuda Bowl in Chennai. “I would like to clarify that this statement has no reflection on the guilt or innocence of Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz, who are currently under inspection of the Special Ethics Committee nominated by the IBF. “The IBF is a consistent participant in all the WBF and EBL competitions and looks forward to continued participation in the future. “Yours sincerely,” Gilad Ofir – IBF Chairman Then came an announcement from the United States:

Statement from Jimmy Cayne by Steve Weinstein  Jimmy Cayne has been a very close friend and a mentor to me for as long as I can remember. He is also the captain of the team that won the 2015 Spingold with Fisher and Schwartz. In light of the recent allegations, many people have been asking me, “What’s Jimmy going to do?” Jimmy is not the type of guy who likes to publicize his decisions; in speaking with him privately, he approved the following statement to be published on Bridge Winners: “As captain of my 2015 Spingold team, I make this statement with heavy heart. “In the last few weeks, I have been made aware of charges levelled against Lotan Fisher and Ron Schwartz, a pair on my team. The most recent published hands lead me to conclude that Fisher-Schwartz may not continue to play on my team unless they are cleared of all charges which might be filed against them. “I am completely on board forfeiting my title, masterpoints, and seeding points for the 2015 Spingold if the ACBL will allow me to do so.” Jimmy Cayne Then this announcement appeared on the European Bridge League’s web site: “Allegations of cheating in international competition by two European players have recently appeared on the internet and on social media. This has been noted by the EBL and following the request of several NBOs, members of the EBL, the EBL has started a process to investigate incidents reported as occurring at EBL Championships.” As we will reveal next month an even more sensational revelation was just days away. 83

October 2015

BRIDGE Magazine