Cam French

Collateral Damage VI

Tempted by the Fruit of Another 

Squeeze

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. 

George Santayana

The sad truth is the ACBL had no more evidence come June in Atlanta than it did it at Norfolk. Why not? No one had bothered to look for it. How does that sit with President’s Spivak’s assertion that “it gets an important message to the members of the American Contract Bridge League, namely, that we shall vigorously pursue any breaches of the proprieties or instances of cheating that are brought to our attention.”?

Maybe that’s what Wolff was referring to when he said looking back at this was “too painful”. Too embarrassing is more like it. I don’t blame Wolff, but I don’t get the painful part. I guess it’s like looking back on the "ex", and remembering the good times with fondness and bad with horror. When it is someone else’s ex – the pain does not resonate with the same clarity.

You might think that when players of the stature of Martel, Woolsey, Lewis, Jacobus and Blumenthal approach a National Tournament Director with clear and irrefutable proof of cheating at the game’s highest level, that someone in Memphis would initiate an investigation into these allegations. But no, the time bought by the acquiescence of the code-breakers was squandered.

What the ACBL had in Atlanta (at the GNTs, June 1979), was a gun to its head. Until Woolsey said – we will not allow this situation to perpetuate, the League had NOTHING. No one was doing surveillance or gathering evidence after learning the truth in March. Memphis was in hibernation. At Atlanta, Woolsey and company re-explain the code they broke at Norfolk. They tell the director who can’t believe what he is hearing; cheaters were exposed three months earlier and here they are playing for the Grand National title? Woolsey instructs the monitors as to what to look for. If Woolsey had not forced the ACBL’s hand, one has to wonder how long the League would have allowed cheaters to continue to play. How many contenders to the GNT had team Sternberg KO’d leading to "winning" the right to represent their district? That may be the too painful part the Lone Wolff was talking about.

What does it say when nobody for the League bothers to tell the Chief Tournament Director (Machlin) and he has to learn about this from one of the players in the event? Cokin and Sion played and "won" one 1979 (GNT) match, (they used this one to verify their previous evidence) that they later “forfeited” and the year before, they were runners up in the final. Even cheating, they couldn’t win that (1978) event, albeit with different team mates. What does that say to their talent level? It tells me it was not that great. It also tells me that a lot of other experts suspected nothing, probably because it is just not something you think about without due cause and the nose of a bloodhound.

Except for a few more boards witnessed at Atlanta, the League had zero evidence that they did not already have in Norfolk. So that begs the question; why did they not proceed to convict and expel Sion and Cokin at Norfolk? They used the same code. They had the same witnesses, and added a couple more who were enlightened by Woolsey in Atlanta. Why was this not addressed at Norfolk?

That question may never be answered but I suspect the reason is clear. Chief TD Hamilton might have called home to Memphis (or far more likely, walked across the hall as all the hot-shots would be in attendance at the March NABCs) looking for guidance. “We have a problem here…and we need some help. We may have some cheating going on, what should we do?”

What was he told?

We are not ready. We need more time. Buy some. We need the smoking gun. We can’t risk lawsuits.

All of that is heart-warming, touchy-feely, and as cuddly as a teddy bear, but when was the ACBL evidence gathering going to begin? Sadly, it never got off the ground until compelled. What does that tell you?

I freely admit the below is pure conjecture.

I asked a number of top flight players if there were suspicions about Cokin and Sion at that time. A few admitted they never had so much as a hunch. Woolsey admitted he doubted it at the time Martel mentioned it to him. Martel was convinced. He might have shared his thoughts within a close circle of friends. And whether or not he did, he was not alone. Paul Soloway was suspicious as was Ron Andersen. That Andersen held Cokin/Sion in contempt was well-known within his circle. Maybe some of their ex-team mates just had a bad feeling and that’s why they moved on.

The Money, Honey

One of the things no one has ever talked about is how did it come to pass that Sion and Cokin became partners? Think about that for a moment.

From all the evidence, Sion was a couple of big notches above Cokin in the expert game. Sion was the player with a track record of tournament achievement. He wasn’t called “Wonder” for nothing. Cokin was a theorist, albeit a sound one, but without the track record of the game’s elite tournament players. Cokin was great in the back room teaching, critiquing, analyzing and coaching, but not who you wanted (if you were Sternberg and buying The Dream Team) in the line of fire.

Ninety-eight percent of partnerships at the expert level involve players of equal or at least comparable calibre: Kaplan/Kay; Gitelman/Moss, Martel/Stansby, Sontag/Weichsel, Pender/Ross, Woolsey/Manfield, Boyd/Robinson, Hamman/Soloway, Cohen/Bergen, and Rosenberg/Zia. Equality, and thereby trust is inherent in successful partnerships and particularly so at the expert level. Not too many titles are won by French/Hamman, or Joe Blow/Pro. Sion was the pro. Cokin was Joe Blow in comparison to his team and in this select circle at that moment of history.

Sion and Cokin played with other team mates of course. They danced within the inner circle of bridge’s elite. Mike Cappelletti Sr. told me that there were suspicions mostly because some experts thought their accomplishments out-performed their apparent talent level. It was as though Tampa Bay (Devil) Rays with their modest rookie laden lineup was consistently beating the veteran star-studded Yankees, Angels and Red Sox. It is not supposed to happen that way. Yet prior to Martel, no one set their minds to ascertaining how these results were being obtained. No one spoke out, as that would look like sour grapes.

But this partnership was different (or was it?) as it was akin to a sound customer with a first rate pro. Typically those are remunerative arrangements. And this was too. So it was not so much a partnership as that implies reciprocity and equality. We can more accurately classify it as a “working relationship” which requires only an agreement of the roles of the parties within the accord.

Today Alan Cokin is by all accounts a gifted theorist, a talented coach, a compelling teacher. He has paid his price, and has confessed to the ACBL. Several efforts were made to contact him and it was communicated and agreed that there was “little upside” to any involvement on his part to add to this story. I think we can all understand that. Efforts were made to contact Sion and Sternberg too and I am confident that if one of them, or if any other player was motivated to communicate they have had ample opportunity to do so.

Sion (aka Stevie “Wonder”, as in I wonder how he did that) was one of the very few with a natural gift for the game that few of us (OK, few of you) ever attain. One has to wonder, so to speak; why would Sion play with Cokin? 

The obvious reason is that Cokin could be persuaded.

Sion did not need Cokin. Sontag and Weichsel and the bridge elite would play with Sion and peer but never Cokin and peer. Sion could open doors to the summit of the game. Cokin might get there eventually. But here was an offer, to step up to the fast track to play with and against the best in the world. And here was the icing on the cake; getting paid and living the life as a bridge pro. In order to make that feasible, what was necessary was an artificial edge over the field.

Their disparity in ability is a noteworthy fact. It should have sent off alarm bells, given their impressive track record of achievement. If Sion had played with Seamon, Jacobus, Cohen, Smith or a peer, then we would not be looking at this. Cokin is neither Seamon, nor Jacobus nor is he at that level. [1] And there were other telling clues. Cokin and Sion were infamous for their obnoxiousness, not just to opponents, but to each other as well. That was apparently part of the grand scheme. So what made these two come together?

In the beginning, it was the money, honey. This was their livelihood. They needed sponsors to pay the freight and sponsors want to see their name on the trophies and titles. There were not (and is not) an over abundance of well-heeled sponsors willing to pony up for four star players, air fares, hotel bills, steak dinners, room service, entry fees and bonuses. Sponsors are like oysters, precious projects to be cultivated. So when Cokin brought Sternberg to the table, his stature rose.

Cokin was by all accounts a first-rate hustler for clients. And even if he did not enjoy the profile of the game’s elite, to the customers, he was an outstanding player and pitchman. So when he could offer up a generous sponsor (Sternberg), all of a sudden he was bringing something very valuable to the table which ingratiated him with those who made their living from such arrangements. As Hal Holbrook noted to the avaricious broker Charlie Sheen in Oliver Stone’s Wall Street: “the trouble with money is that is makes you do things you would never otherwise do.”

If you were to hire first rate pros, for some strange reason you expect first rate results. Surely like the world’s oldest profession, cheating, be it sport, life, business or gaming will always be with us. Let’s learn to become more vigilant, to spot the warning signs and to look critically at dubious results.

Here comes the tabloid part of our thesis. Let’s look outside the box, and delve into the salacious. The below is speculation, garnered from instinct, titillating details from sundry sources and trying to piece together a thirty year old jigsaw puzzle with a few missing pieces.

I wonder if buried in the committee hearings, signed confessions and ACBL archives are (and I have reason to believe yes) the answers to some of the many untouchable questions. There are so many sordid details that if it were your family’s history or mine, we would not want them to come out either. That said if I was Jack McCoy here, I would have a legacy of queries. The reader should have their own. Somewhere, these answers exist. If they don’t exist on paper, we all know why that is. Here are but a few.

1) Whose idea was it to play together in the first place?

2) Who suggested they cheat?

3) Who devised the code?

4) How does one arrive at the determination to cheat?

5) Who within the ACBL and the expert community knew? And when did they know?

My view to these queries is as follows:

1) Whose idea was it to play together in the first place?

One day at a tournament, probably on the east coast, Sion chats with Cokin after an event and plants the seed that with the right sponsor, he might be willing to form a partnership and even recruit top-level talent to join their team. This was no idle boast as Sion had the stature of an elite bridge talent and could (and would) recruit world class team mates.

2) Who suggested they cheat?

Sion suggested off hand, casually as a way to “hold their own” with the bridge elite; subtly implying that this partnership without an edge was a step or two down in rank from the game’s best and perforce that such was Cokin’s fault.

3) Who devised the code?

Sion’s code, Cokin tweaked it. Sion had already devised a simple yet brilliant scheme. It was just a matter of following the plan effortlessly, being cool under pressure.

4) How does one arrive at the determination to cheat?

Sion suggested to Cokin that this “unlawful communication” would help them achieve superior results for their sponsors which in turn help obtain better team mates, which in turn could beget wealthier backers. This wheel goes round and round, the price goes up as do the expectations from those footing the expense accounts.

5) Who within the ACBL and the expert community knew? And when did they know?

Certainly no one within the ACBL wants that to come out. That is Don Henley’s “Dirty Laundry” and although the bridge public might salivate at the prospect, I think it’s akin to a dark, shameful family secret about grandpa or Uncle Fester which for “the sake of the family” we will all look askance and pretend it never happened. This question will be addressed in the next and last chapter.

Was Cokin a victim too? I am sure all members of team Hann (and others) would recoil at the thought. If I were in their shoes, I would be incensed at the mere suggestion. Still, he was seduced by the lure of the invitation into the inner sanctum and of course playing with and against the likes of Levin, Seamon, Rosenkranz, Wold, Sanborn, Soloway, Hamman, Martel, Stansby, Wolff, Sontag, Weichsel and the list goes on. Here he is, suddenly part of the fraternity, the cream of the crop and the best players in the world. It is an exclusive domain in which few are welcome. I should know. I am one of the many.

Still, he made his bed. He chose to conspire, to “unlawfully communicate” and for that choice, he has paid a price. And unlike his partner, he has gone on to a successful career within bridge as a theorist and more recently as a coach working with expert players like Steve Landen and Pratap Rajadhyaksha.

Steve Sion once admitted to a close friend of mine that “it was the money”. Americans call that hearsay. I call it juicy gossip from a lifelong friend with no axe to grind. It certainly fits. It’s not like Sion said, “I did it for the pabulum and diapers”…… My friend (and certainly many within the bridge upper echelons) respected “Wonder” for his fabulous innate talent and could enjoy his charm. He was by all accounts charismatic. Allegedly, according to one of his former partners “bridge, broads and baseball” were his preferred interests. I can empathize with that. Sion’s bridge talents and his social magnetism were never in doubt. Eventually his “other sociopathic behaviors", (as Bobby Wolff labeled it) led to a permanent expulsion.

A couple individuals suggested that they disparaged opponents and each other with blatant hostility. One person mentioned that part of the Cokin/Sion coaching sessions (with Dr. Sternberg) included tactical considerations, particularly to be verbally abusive to women and less experienced players. Today their temper tantrums, insults and total lack of table manners would be incongruent with the present day agenda of “zero tolerance”. His team mate Sontag in The Bridge Bum (p75) noted “Sion was really bright, but he had the annoying habit of so informing people. ….Steve would tell {all partners} what they did “wrong”. He would tell them on the spot, not after the game during a “rap” session. His saving virtue was that he was usually right.”

So what if Cokin has the charisma of a cornered badger and Sion could charm the pompoms off a cheerleader? It is gossipy and attention-grabbing. Is it or is it not relevant? Was there more to their signaling system (Woolsey thought so) than the pencil positioning to indicate shortness? They made some pretty amazing opening leads. Did certain team mates or opponents come to suspect something was amiss? For example in 1978 they lost in the GNT finals; their team was Sion, Cokin, Reinhold, Levin and Seamon. If you make it to the finals, and lose; most consider that a formidable accomplishment upon which you might build. What factors led to the dissolution of this successful team? My guess? Sternberg came along.

Maybe one thing we might learn from this is when players who are not close friends nor apparently customer and professional and attain outstanding results, they should be scrutinized. This is something we should all do, especially at the highest levels because such experts have insights into the game far deeper than the run of the mill player. (more on this in the next chapter)

Maybe the sponsoring organizations should hire some computer geeks to develop some tracking software, to “red-flag” atypical situations and then follow up with some investigation. But the best tool is field personnel, expert players who can sense something amiss, and report it to …….well, who knows where? If this case gives cause for concern, it shows that expert players took it upon themselves to decipher a code, verify its authenticity, and only then report it to the authorities. And what was done with that information? It was frittered away, neglected, and ultimately dissipated into the wind.

Today cheating remains a black hole to the ACBL (although I am sure they beg to differ) where there are puny resources dedicated to detecting, unmasking and convicting cheaters. I asked my BOD member Jonathon Steinberg who I might contact if I wanted to renounce a title because my team mates had cheated. (I had hoped to pass this information along to Sontag/Weichsel.) Predictably he had no clue, and referred me to the ACBL BOD. And what does that say?

It tells me that cheating within the halls of Memphis has the same sex appeal as leprosy. It exists, but it is elsewhere (hopefully on a secluded island) and we really don’t want to talk about it, let alone go back and revisit the past. As for Cappelletti, Feldman, Hann, Hoffner, Jabbour, Sacks they now know they were swindled, that the ACBL denied, aided, and abetted the same.

So while cheaters retain their unlawfully gotten gains, the victims have but evidence, testimonials, signed confessions, archived hands, secret committee testimony and the knowledge that they were sacrificial lambs. In the meantime, convicted cheaters and their unwitting accomplices cling to this title with the tenacity of a pit-bull.

Tell that to President Spivak and sell it to the membership.

Or is that just too painful?

---

[1] I only pick Seamon’s name as they played in an event I read in TBW and I see that S. Sion/T. Kasday/M. Seamon/B. Cohen/R. Smith won the Spring NABC Jacoby Open Swiss in 1993.

Collateral Damage V

Just Say No

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This episode happened almost 30 years ago. Can we put it to rest where everyone wins? That may prove difficult, but then again, maybe not. Let’s put it this way; if the ACBL were to seek a resolution, it would be easy. So far, there is precious little evidence to suggest the League seeks anything beyond avoidance.

Mike Cappelletti, Ron Feldman, Gary Hann, Michael Hoffner, Zeke Jabbour, and David Sacks might just be happy with what Gary Hann suggested back in 1979.

“A letter from the ACBL declaring us the winners of the Men’s Teams {BAM/Norfolk/1979} and the proper adjustment of Masterpoint awards will suffice”....

After all is said and done, maybe Bob Hamman was right. A little healing needs to come out of this. Those meagre demands hardly seem excessive, in fact – rather paltry. In the spirit of the game as noted in the prologue, there was surprisingly little bitterness coming from Cappelletti, Feldman, Hann, Hoffner, Jabbour and Sacks. The ACBL should consider itself fortuitous at such a possible settlement. No huge legal fees, no anti-trust or class action suits, no litigation, no apologies demanded, no heads have to role, just an acknowledgement of an historical wrong set right. Who loses? A couple of cheaters?

Maybe it’s time to seize this chance to put things right. And in case anyone is wondering, I don’t claim to speak for Cappelletti and company.

Do the Nancy Reagan

“I would prefer to lose with honor that to win by cheating.” (Sophocles)

You might think all bridge players would concur. Of course most do – but “all” do not. This case is bullet-proof evidence that such is not the case.

The sad truth is as simple and plain as Woolsey pointed out a long time ago. "There is no doubt they were cheating at Norfolk." What is missing is a lack of political will. The school-yard bully does not want to confess, come clean and look weak. The lawyers say so. And they are oh so right. Whatever happened to doing the right thing? Is that concept so foreign, or litigious, or somehow alien to bridge justice, that a successful resolution is beyond reach? I don't think so. Cappelletti is a lawyer. He could have spent his time and money a long time ago, fighting for this or that. Heaven knows he would have a better case than Sion and Cokin and others who have given the League ample cause to be anxious about lawsuits. Cappelletti and team have done nothing with regards to suing. Mind you, they did not know prior to this story's revelations that the League was complicit all along. My guess is that as a starting point they are happy to see their story in print. Everything else that may spawn from there is advantageous. That said they have waited 29 long years. Is there a statute of limitations on justice?

Go back in time. For a moment, try to imagine this episode from David Sacks' point of view.

Your team clicks on all cylinders in what might have been the first National championship for any of you. You are not the betting favourite.

You lose the event by less than one (1) board.

You were cheated on a hand. It turns out that the winning team had a pair who cheated throughout the event, and specifically against you.

You looked at their bidding, play, lead and defense on this board against you. It reeked. You did not want to sound bitter, so you tried to gauge the accuracy of your feelings and show the hand to a mentor, a man you feel privileged to know, who takes the time to impart his guidance to anyone who asks. He comes over and says to you - “I would like to congratulate the real winners”.

What does that tell you?

You try to show him the hand (where you suspect but do not know you were swindled) but he interrupts you and tells you before hearing any of the details beyond the names of Cokin/Sion to seek out the director and get it on the record.

Paul Soloway says this. Not some random upstart.

This comes from an expert who by example, decorum, giving back, accomplishment and just as importantly; a player who enjoyed the heart-felt respect of his fellow experts. I will dare to say Soloway was the consummate expert, not just in rank but in stature.  If Paul Soloway tells you to go to the director, you better do as you are told.

Sacks follows Soloway's advice and goes to see the director.

Soloway sensed that Cokin and Sion were attaining results beyond their talent level. Did he have proof? Did he share his suspicions? Did he seek to decode their system? I suspect no, to all of the preceding. But he was vigilant, and he was attuned to the fact that something was amiss. He put himself on red-alert to harvest any and all evidence that might corroborate his suspicions. And he was right. Soloway understood (and this is why he refused to look at the hand) that this hand could go to committee. He would rather be a committee member, than a superfluous witness. He was attentive to potential opportunities to accrue evidence.  Here it was coming out of nowhere from a reliable and unsolicited source.

We all get it now. The skeletons are out of the closet. The lies exposed. The alibis explained.

How about we start anew?

What is missing is the aversion of the League to address this; to admit that  mistakes in judgment were made. Maybe that (admitting) opens the door to litigation…I am not a lawyer so I am guessing. America is a very litigious society. In Canada for example, your lawyer compels you to pay a generous retainer to ensure your case is not frivolous. This discourages the ambulance chasers.

That said, Cappelletti is a lawyer and nearly thirty years have passed and the non-offending team never filed suit. Maybe they should if the League can’t motivate itself to do something. I don’t pretend to know.

I say to the ACBL, do nothing. Live down to our expectations. It appears you have done just that so far.

In reality what you have done is much worse. You denied cheating existed when you had proof, you refused to gather evidence of the same, you dismissed appeals from the victims without cause and you buried the evidence because it exposed you for what you were - culpable.

To the ACBL I say:

Don’t explain that you are doing nothing, because then you are doing something.

Don’t strip the title from Sternberg and company.

Don’t you dare acknowledge that a miscarriage of justice occurred!

Do the Nancy Reagan. Just say no. No, we will not look back.

No, we don’t care that our officers lied, even when it served the short term interests of the League, at the expense of its members and permitted a violation upon the sanctity of the game.

No, we are not interested in healing and acknowledging the patently obvious.

We prefer you would just go away. Good riddance. Get lost. You don’t deserve protection from cheaters because; well….we might get sued. The integrity of the game is collaterally tarnished and we just don’t care. Why should we?

By the way, please renew your membership promptly.

And if the League is so terrified of cheaters suing, how alarmed will they be should the victims of cheaters decide to sue? How will they fight them?

Just say no.

Some might claim that if the League had a little backbone, the very least they could do was strip the title from the cheaters and hold the title “vacant”. Then someone could call Henry Francis and ask him to edit the next edition of The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge. Will that happen? Ask the BOD, but don't bet the family farm.

Maybe it is best that they keep their ill-gotten gains? What the heck - why not? Will the ACBL take it away?

Let it stand as is. Let Norfolk serve as an albatross around the neck of the ACBL and team Sternberg; a symbol synonymous with cheating, betrayal and duplicity. That might appease some, but it does not do justice to those who were swindled. Don’t they deserve a little more than stonewalling? I think so. That said, change is unlikely to be forthcoming without public persuasion.

The ACBL can relax, the hordes of cheated victims will not be pouring out of the wood work. Ralph Nader is not preparing a class action suit. Sure 29 years ago had the floodgates opened, anything might have happened. But now? Ancient history. And if I am not mistaken one of the foundations of American jurisprudence is that each case is determined on its own merits. This case, entombed in amber -  is yet to be judged.

I hope this title brings a warm fuzzy feeling to ACBL past and present BOD members, their lawyers, consultants, officers and least we forget Sternberg, Cokin, Sion, Sontag, and Weichsel that comes from the thrill of victory. If so - let them enjoy it. If not, let them be remembered by it. Either way, they deserve it. Please take it. You want it – it’s all yours.

I don’t want to remember Sontag and Weichsel for Norfolk, but sadly, that may be their legacy. With all their other fabulous accomplishments, why wouldn’t they ditch this one like a hot potato? This is a small fry, which may in the end-game have a big bite. Sontag and Weichsel should have tossed this (and all other events where they were team mates with Cokin and Sion) back after realizing that their team mates were cheaters. What is so hard about that?

Answer:

1) Nothing.

2) Ego.

Sternberg, Sontag and Weichsel were asked to relinquish this title. They declined, as is their right. Their legacy of accomplishment is stellar. With that record - who would want this ball and chain tethered to their lofty reputation? It boggles the mind. Please tell us why you cling to this purloined title? My guess, you just want this to fade away. You let us down. Why?

At some time, you should have just said "no".

When that was, only you can answer.

I confess I don't get it. What I  do get is that winning through cheating is an affront to the game.

You want it.

You can't stand to part with it.

It resonates with you.

So be it.

Keep it.

Mount it on your wall.

May it be everything you ever dreamt.

Sweet dreams.

C

Next up, did they know? Should they have known?

Comments invited.

See blog below or:

c.french@rogers.com

danceswithwords@rogers.com

Collateral Damage IV

"We Cannot Assume."

    We all make assumptions at our own risk. 

It is easier to be critical than to propose solutions, be they constructive, innovative, delusional or otherwise.

I hope to be innovative and otherwise.

The preceding chapters served an attempt to set the table for the endgame, by laying out the facts, the fears, the anger and the sentiments of that time. And that is important. 1979. Think about life then. I was one year out of university, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. Bridge has its own ever-evolving culture. Nowadays, thanks to innovators like Fred and the growth in popularity of the Internet, our game transcends borders, generations, cultures and nations. Back then, the mind set was that of your parents.

This portion of the story is the culminates the author's research, instincts and biases into opinions and suggestions. They embrace a spectrum of propositions from the logical to the controversial. Let's remember for a moment what we are addressing. The ACBL knew of cheating at Norfolk, denied the same, and thwarted the legal efforts of the cheated to the benefit of the cheaters. How is that for a legacy?

This morsel of ACBL perspective (from Executive Secretary & General Manager Richard Goldberg), dated 11/7/79 speaks for itself:

"Messrs. Cokin and Sion were found by the properly constituted committee to have exchanged improper information during the Zonal Grand National competitions in June in Atlanta. As I understand the situation, the ruling was made by the committee after this pair had been monitored during the play of numerous boards. The decision, of course, applied only during the matches observed in Atlanta. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Hann, we cannot assume that improper information was exchanged in prior events. Therefore, it would be impractical to “adjust” results based on a situation that might - or might not - have occurred. I do hope you understand.”

Well, what does that really say? (more on this later) It is the standard denial, rife with cliché, omissions and ambiguity. It seems to suggest, that if the exchange of “improper information” was established in prior events, then it would be practical to “adjust” the scores based upon what did indeed occur. He tossed a coin into the air and the preceding memo won. Is this the one he flirted with sending?

“Messrs. Cokin and Sion were found by the properly constituted committee to have exchanged improper information during the Zonal Grand National competitions in June in Atlanta and the Men's Board-A-Match event of the March NABC in Norfolk. As the code was broken in Norfolk, at the BAM event for which you seek redress, as I understand the situation, the ruling must embrace any prior or concomitant act that can be sustained by the evidence presented to the committee. The committee determined, after this pair had been monitored at Norfolk and Atlanta, that during the play of numerous boards that indeed, unlawful communication had occurred in Norfolk and was validated in Atlanta. Therefore pursuant to your request it is incumbent upon us to “adjust” results based on a situation that is proven to have occurred and adversely impacted the standings of the top two teams in said event. I thank you for bringing this to our attention on a timely basis. I hope that committee decision which was to strip the title from Sternberg, award it to Hann, with a full explanation in an upcoming Bulletin and proper Masterpoint accreditation to follow will be adequate compensation for any emotional and/or other suffering you and your team mates might have enduring awaiting the resolution of this matter. ”

(more on this later)

Recommendations for the ACBL

                     and more importantly the Membership.

1) That a “properly constituted committee" be convened as originally requested within the “applicable correction period” by David Sacks to Director Mike Linah; pursuant to the actions of Sion and Cokin on Board 13 in the BAM event of Norfolk 1979. The ACBL can best determine what type of committee this should be. The purpose of the committee will be to determine if there was an irregularity committed on said board, and if so, to determine what, if any adjudication should result. (Gary Hann wrote ACBL General Secretary and General Manager Richard Goldberg on 1/25/80) This is part of his letter. “We respectfully request that our case be reviewed by a properly constituted committee of the ACBL whether that be the Judiciary Committee, a National Tournament Committee and/or the entire Board of Directors.” This recommendation is consistent with his request. (see appendices for further details)

2) That Kit Woolsey, Chip Martel, Paul Lewis, Brenda Blumenthal, Marc Jacobus, Steve Robinson, Bobby Wolff, David Sacks, Zeke Jabbour, David Hoffner, Mike Cappelletti, Gary Hann, Ron Feldman; perhaps Steve Sion/Allan Cokin, (one or both of the last two may prove unwilling) and anyone else the “properly constituted committee” feels can add to the archive of evidence of this case should be requested as witnesses. The witnesses who were called pursuant to Atlanta might be a sound place to start.

3) The lawyers will perforce wish to frame the terms of reference and the committee’s mandate as tightly as possible. For example, the “unlawful communications” of Cokin and Sion had been decoded at Norfolk, but neither were charged nor (perforce) convicted of any offence at Norfolk. Should evidence be permitted from Atlanta that validates that they cheated back in Norfolk? The answer to that is easy. Only if it pertains to Norfolk. So, any hand records from Atlanta are moot, unless they are used to substantiate the code detected and broken at Norfolk. Since they used the same code in Atlanta as they used in Norfolk, all Atlanta did was verify the fact that the code-breakers had indeed deciphered their pencil-pad signaling system established three months earlier. Woolsey forced the issue, taught the code to the monitors, observers and others, sat back and watched them confirm his proof. The ACBL asked for time to accrue more evidence. Therefore, Atlanta can serve as evidence for Norfolk. Let's remember that the ACBL enabled this scenario, by requesting a deferral.

4) Is there a statute of limitations on cheating? No. Well, yes. Well, yes and no. The amended DOC (Disciplinary Rules of Conduct) had a specific time limitations pursuant to a specific event. What if one could establish a long-standing pattern of cheating? This was eventually corroborated by Cokin's and Sion's confessions, expert observers and proving the same by calling off the short suit every hand in two separate events. Would that be subject to the "applicable correction period?" What period might that be? The duration of their documented cheating and of their confessed sins? Since the Cokin/Sion admitted to cheating in virtually every event they ever played in, they were by their own admission "serial cheaters". So how many of their titles and accomplishments are tarnished? Answer: every last one of them. Or is that going to hurt some feelings, bruise some egos? One can only hope.

5) America is one of the minority of jurisdictions which acknowledge such a concept as statute of limitations. Here we are not talking about a criminal act, unless we wish to add fraud to the charges. At this point, fraud is not on the table. Dr. Sternberg may feel differently, but no correspondence has come from him thus far.  “Unlawful communication” is the act in question. That is not a criminal act, except within the game of bridge. There is no statute preventing anyone from revisiting a series of cold cases many years after the fact. The only thing lacking is resolve, or as Woolsey labeled it – “ a political issue". And of course there is a natural reluctance to revisit tender memories. If nothing can be learned from this episode, then we, the rank and file and our game are all victims. So will our League reconsider and put this on the table?

6) Kit Woolsey writes “There is no dispute that Sion and Cokin were cheating. And there is no question that they were doing so in the BAM event, since that was the event where we gathered the data from which we were able to break a piece of their code. It is simply a political issue…. You don't need to build more evidence. The facts aren’t in question".[1]” Mr. Woolsey correctly defines the heart of the matter; as a “political issue”. If the facts aren’t in question, what needs to happen to motivate the “politicians” (presumably the ACBL Board of Directors) to recognize this? Well, Mr. Woolsey was partly right. The facts pursuant to Cokin/Sion cheating at Norfolk are not in dispute, at least in his mind. The ACBL has denied that "prior evidence" {to Atlanta} ever took place so they may beg to differ with his "the facts are not in question". More to the point: what might be done with that knowledge is very much in dispute. What possible options are there?

1) Do something.

2) Do nothing.

Please enlighten me with option number three.

The choices are, however unpalatable:

i) Do nothing. Or …..

ii) Do Something: like call upon a committee to look into it.

7) Certainly the ACBL having buried this case a long time ago, dismissing any and all entreaties to re-open it has demonstrated how interested it is in seeing it revisited. Does it care that it abrogated its duties when it dismissed all appeals and allowed cheaters to win? Does it want it known that there was no protocol in place to monitor, catch and prosecute cheaters so that even when alerted in March 1979 and that cheaters continued to compete months later without scrutiny? Does it matter that delaying the review of the board in question served a greater good? Does it justify slamming shut Pandora’s Box, and dismissing all subsequent appeals? Certainly, these decisions reflect poorly upon the League. Is it too late to address this case?  No. If we don't learn from history, then we are destined to repeat the same mistakes.

8) Bob Hamman[2] and others opined that maybe, like Jimmy Carter’s amnesty, it’s time to look back and heal some wounds. How can we learn? Let’s use this episode to advance our game. Mr. Hamman also suggested to me that if a scoring adjustment was the ultimate objective, then the likelihood of said outcome was improbable. A scoring adjustment would be pleasant proof that the League recognizes the injustice and seeks to redress the same. I doubt Cappelletti, Feldman, Hann, Hoffner, Jabbour and Sacks would disagree. My objective is simple: to tell a story and do it well. Will change ensue? In a perfect world, of course. In this world, I guess we will have to wait and see.

9) For the record, it is important to acknowledge that Mike Linah and John Hamilton did their employer (the ACBL) an apparent service. They handed off the ball at the one yard line, and expected a touchdown. What did they get for serving the ACBL's directives? No one will ever know, but this much is certain; the window of opportunity they sought to create for the League was discarded like Ed Mansfield’s idle fifth. They deserved better. One has to acknowledge, that if the committee requested by Sacks was granted and the code-breakers shared their knowledge this would have been resolved 29 years ago, with a result analogous to Atlanta. I believe that Vincent Remey, Richard Goldberg and Leo Spivak were trying to protect the League and their decisions led them down a one way path, and there would be no going back.

10) Just for laughs - what do we say to Cappelletti, Hoffner, Hann, Jabbour, Feldman and Sacks? Sorry, you were cheated but hey – that was a long time ago and well, even though you asked for a committee on a timely basis - we just don’t want to go there? Let sleeping dogs lie. Let it go. Suck up the fact you were cheated and we can't or won't go back. Why reopen old wounds? The answer to that is easy too. Whose wounds are we re-opening? Those of the cheaters Sion and Cokin? Those of their team mates Weichsel and Sontag? Their sponsor – Sternberg? Those of the ACBL? All  wounds sustained by the aforementioned were self-inflicted. In our hearts, minds and laws, we recognize the rights of victims as superior to those of the perpetrators. The real “victims” here are the integrity of the game, Cappelletti, Feldman, Hann, Hoffner, Sacks, and Jabbour and others who were cheated over the years. For whatever reasons, they are happy to reopen their wounds, to see the injustice imposed upon them brought to light. So really, why not air it out? Dirty laundry, long interred skeletons, let’s hang them out and see what happens. Or will that be too “painful” for some who don’t like what they see in the rearview mirror? And of course, yes it is. To paraphrase, one man's pain is another man's pleasure.

11) The ACBL BOD should consider, with or without the findings of its “properly constituted committee”:

i) Stripping team Sternberg of its victory at Norfolk BAM 1979.

What the hell is so hard about that? We have their confessions. We have witnesses. We have a timely appeal. We have all the evidence a prosecutor could ever amass. But, to the BOD it is not enough. What is enough? Please enlighten us.

Stripping team Sternberg is as Woolsey puts it is :“political”. It is part of the historical archive that Sion and Cokin cheated throughout this event, including a specific hand against team Hann which was reported by the non-offending team and “noted” by the directors at the time. So although time and political agendas may well work against said resolution, such an action should be seen as inevitable and/or fair (what a concept!) by many. Bobby Wolff reported where the signed confessions are sitting - in Jeff Polisner's office. We know what Woolsey and Martel, (see Appendices) have to say and they have corroboration from Blumenthal, Lewis and Jacobus.

So we have signed confessions, corroborative evidence, a smoking gun covered with the defendants' fingerprints, yet the sentiment is from high on above is, (let me get this right) retain your title. Let's enable cheaters. Even should the non-offending party register a protest, and ask for a committee, well, that’s just too bad. If the ACBL fails to strip the title from Sternberg, they validate cheaters. You tell me, why should you retain the fruits of your crimes? If you rob a bank and they catch you, for some reason they confiscate your purloined bounty. That may seem harsh to a few, but it is seen as pragmatic by the majority. So I ask again, why do Sion/Cokin/Sternberg/Sontag/Weichsel retain their ill-gotten gains?

Is that really the intent of the laws - to validate cheaters? Please say it ain't so. Of course it is not the intent of the laws, but it was the collateral effect of those empowered to enforce the laws. In their efforts to spare the League the nightmares of potential litigation, the sad part is Spivak, Goldberg and Remey gave inadequate consideration to the laws of the League that they were elected to uphold and enforce. When is a cheater not a cheater, well....when we say so? They allow them to retain the fruits of their crimes. No one wants to say that, at least - not in those words. But let’s call this spade a spade. As of this writing the cheaters and their non-cheating team mates retain their ill-gotten gains. (At least according to the ACBL and The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge 6th edition.) Interestingly I emailed my ACBL representative Jonathon Steinberg asking him if I had a title I wanted to renounce, how might I go about it? He had no idea and referred me to the BOD. What does that tell you?

Team Sternberg, (Sontag, Weichsel, Cokin, Sion) through the illegal actions of Cokin/Sion won the BAM at Norfolk 1979. Can we put an asterisk next to the title? Why don’t we just do the right thing? Let’s have a committee examine the historical archive and see what, if any adjustment should be made. You can’t strip them of the title  if you don’t look at the proof. And you don’t want to look at the proof because it and other actions makes the League look duplicitous. Catch 22. Somewhere, Joseph Heller is smiling. Make an informed decision. But do not run away, denying due process to these members. If a properly constituted committee appointed by the ACBL determined that in Cokin and Sion cheated on Board 13 of the BAM and that a reversal of the scoring was appropriate then the ACBL should do the right thing and:

ii) Award said title to the second place team.

Many within the League would suggest that such an idea is contentious. Why should we do that; especially when the rules (after amendment) advocate for “vacating” the title? Here is the answer in all its simplicity. Except for the cheating of Cokin/Sion at Norfolk, which was documented and confessed to, Cappelletti and his teammates won the event. How is that for a solution? We award the title to the winners. I guess that will raise eyebrows.....after all, who should have the title? Cheaters? Or is vacancy the answer? Yes it is. Vacancy validates the inability of the League to deal with this problem directly.

The “vacant title” argument is just that; bereft of logic, judgment and certainly accredited precedent. Name an event without a winner. Alas, Miss America does not count. Even where the winner is disqualified, somebody eventually is anointed champion.  Everyone who enters a competitive event does so in the hope to win. If the title is vacated, no one can win. Second place, third place, fourth place, all equally denied an opportunity. Here we have equality in losing, even if you might have won. The argument for said logic is that in most bridge events, you play the field, not one on one, like boxing or baseball. So who did you cheat against, and how did your (selective?) cheating affect the results?

The answer is patently obvious.

Cheaters seek every advantage, they cheat on every hand. Certainly Cokin and Sion were “unlawfully communicating” on every hand when Woolsey and friends can pick off their transmissions with "100% accuracy" in back to back events. The bottom line is they cheat on every hand. Period. They are not so inclined as to say – oh – here are my old friends Peter and Alan. We won’t cheat against them. That is in a word; laughable. Every hand, every opportunity must be maximized. Cheaters have no favourites except themselves.

12) The title is stripped from cheaters and awarded to team Hann because:

· David Sacks on behalf of his team and Paul Soloway's instructions went to the director to report a suspicious hand.

· Sacks did this within the “applicable correction period”.

· The directors (Linah and Hamilton) were unable for legal and insurance reasons to address said complaint at that point in time. They sought advice from higher-ups and followed it.

· That the ACBL had no effective protocol in place to cope with this situation.

· That cheating was established at said event, by multiple witnesses.

· That the ACBL knew said cheating had occurred, and sought to conceal that fact.

· That Cokin/Sion cheated on a hand versus Sacks/Hoffner that “won” them the board, and thus the event. Note the margin of victory was less than a full board and the damage was direct, and reported on a timely basis. 

· That the ACBL dismissed Hann’s applications without cause, fearful of lawsuits and litigation, denying said team the opportunity for their case to be heard.

· That Vincent Remey, Richard Goldberg, Leo Spivak, and certainly other ACBL BOD members knew of the validity of Hann’s appeals, and sought to deny, obfuscate and discredit them in the hope that they would disappear with time.

· When all is said and done, as Spike Lee said "Just do the right thing." Is that so tough?

· The bottom line is, Cappelletti, Feldman, Hann, Hoffner, Jabbour, Sacks were the legitimate and legal winners of this event, unless you want to allow cheaters to retain the fruits of their crimes.  They won it, but somehow remain a footnote. If anyone can explain that, love to hear it.

13) In the San Francisco Chronicle, 1979, ACBL President Leo Spivak was quoted as saying that the "monitors identified (emphasis added) singletons, voids or good suits in the suspects’ hands before viewing their cards, solely by reading the pencil/pad code.” [3] {This refers to Atlanta.} In The Bulletin of August, 1979 ACBL President Leo Spivak writes “Prearranged Improper Communication. The gravest possible offence against propriety is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws….…..it gets an important message to the members of the American Contract Bridge League, namely, that we shall vigorously pursue any breaches of the proprieties or instances of cheating that are brought to our attention.” 

I have news for President Spivak and today's BOD members. "Monitors" verified, not identified the code. And they would never even had been present if Woolsey not brought the issue to Chief Tournament Director Jerry Machlin's attention.

To honor the memory and integrity of ACBL President Spivak, our current and former Presidents, current ACBL BOD members I ask you to validate President’s Spivak’s assertion that “we shall vigorously pursue any breaches of the proprieties or instances of cheating that are brought to our attention.”

Here it is.

Let me reiterate.

Mike Cappelletti, Ron Feldman Gary Hann, David Hoffner, Zeke Jabbour, David Sacks, and myself would like to bring the incident of Norfolk, 1979 BAM to your attention.

Thus I ask you, are President’s Spivak’s words hollow or sincere? I have no doubt that they were uttered in the spirit of honor and an attempt to bolster the integrity of the game. How do those words sound to Cappelletti, Hoffner, Feldman, Hann, Jabbour and Sacks who were cheated, through “prearranged improper communication” and filed a timely appeal only to see their case entombed in amber? How much longer are they to be collateral damage?

What does it say to the membership, when “the gravest possible offence against propriety” goes unpunished, unrecognized and the perpetrators retain the fruits of their crimes? Sadder still, the League enabled the same. It should be an affront not just to the everyday rank and file, and the elected Board members and the executives we hire to manage our game. Is it? Or, because it was a long time ago, and we don’t want to go back there, let’s just let it slide. There are only two options, do something or do nothing. As Red said in Shawshank,  "Get busy living or get busy dying."

What shall we choose? If you have an opinion, I invite you to share it with the ACBL. You can contact them at:

bod@acbl.org

Happy trails,

C

Musings

Bridge is a game of ethics. Sadly cheaters fail to grasp that concept. Like golf, where a player is expected to call a penalty upon himself, bridge is one of a very few sports where principles are woven into the fabric of the game. In baseball you do the opposite; try to steal bases and signs, argue with the umpire whether you are right or wrong and feign catching a ball that nicked the turf. In bridge, you are expected to alert the opponents of any private agreements. In an effort to minimize the possibility of the transmission of unauthorized information bidding boxes and screens have been added to many events.

Cokin and Sion violated the spirit, letter, laws and sanctity of the game. They created their private artificial communication system to bypass accepted rules and thereby soiled the game. Yet they retain the fruits of their unlawful acts. Why is that? They are convicted, they have confessed, but hey - keep your purloined bounty. Wherein is the logic for that?

Their private and thus unlawful communication systems are recognized by the laws as: “The gravest possible offense is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws”.

This was not just this event. Bridge is at stake here, and how we deal with conflict and controversy are relevant.

The expert player knows that an apparent small advantage (typically skill) although in this case, communicating shortness is in fact - a huge advantage. It helps you on defense, opening leads, overcalls and more. For example, holding the ace of trumps (say hearts) and partner (illegally )shows a singleton club, one could lead a  club, get in with the ace of trumps and give part a ruff. Or one might not overcall with for example AJT9xx knowing (illegally of course) that partner had a singleton. See Martel's note in the Appendices. This illegal communication provides insight not only to the short suit, but by extension the entire hand. And for what it is worth, even Woolsey suggested that they had only cracked part of the code. The opening leads become more clairvoyant with insider information. The overcalls, or failure to overcall (and be subject to a penalty when partner is short) become more precise. It is an edge, and that is enough in the right hands. So please don't dismiss their communication system as moot. It was anything but. It was an illegal advantage, that led to insights in the bidding, play and defense of the hands. After all, their record of achievement was astounding. If only it were accrued through talent versus unlawful communications. The board in question is a testament to this argument.

All the events Sion/Cokin participated in between Norfolk (3/79) and Atlanta (6/79) are tainted. We know they cheated for a full year prior to Atlanta. How far back does it go? They admitted (as per Bobby Wolff) to cheating in basically every event they ever played in. How many Regionals and other tournaments did they win or do well in while the ACBL was dawdling? If there is no doubt (as Woolsey proves) that they were cheating at Norfolk why can we not re-visit that episode? The answer is doing so is hurtful, painful and embarrassing to league officials, convicted cheaters and their sponsor/team mates. If we cut to the chase the answer is Team Hann’s results were buried because recognizing their case would bring into question other events. And that is really what this was all about. Dodging responsibility, or much more along the same lines, avoiding a perceived legal liability.

BOD member Vincent Remey feared (and he was not alone) the possibility of impending litigations. He understood that granting a hearing that could convict Cokin/Sion at Norfolk exposed the inability of the ACBL to catch and deal with cheaters. So, in spite of all the rhetoric, the grandstanding, the alibis and excuses; in the end, the failure to address Norfolk was about minimizing the litigation and legal exposure of the League to future lawsuits. We all understand that now. Maybe it is time to heal, to look back.

When Vincent Remey died, who was his replacement on the BOD?

Answer: Gary Hann. How is that for Karma?

This note is so artistically crafted, it deserves a second peek.

“……Messrs. Cokin and Sion were found by the properly constituted committee to have exchanged improper information during the Zonal Grand National competition in June in Atlanta. As I understand the situation, the ruling was made by the committee after this pair had been monitored during the play of numerous boards. The decision, of course, applied only during matches observed in Atlanta. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Hann, we cannot assume that improper information was exchanged in prior events. (Emphasis added.) Therefore it would be impractical to attempt to “adjust” results based on a situation that might - or might not – have occurred. I do hope you understand.” [4]

Oh - I understand. This note is rife with garnish, (“properly constituted”  “As I understand it”,) inaccuracies (“we cannot assume that improper information was exchanged in prior events”) and blatant omissions (no mention of when the code-breaking took place, "numerous boards" are not specified as Atlanta or when they were tarnishing all events during April, May and June). It doesn’t pass the smell test. OK, it stinks.

Finally getting a couple of admissions from ACBL archivist Mr. Blaiss (yes, they changed to DOC, and no, team Sternberg was never stripped of their title) – were nice but small potatoes. Now, it is time to troll for bigger fish. Was the “properly constituted committee” mandated to look only at Atlanta? Was evidence of prior acts attested to by the witnesses?

Did no one ask "how did you break the code?"

“Who did so?”

“Where?”

“When did this happen?”

Of course one might think these were logical queries to discover the strength of the evidence against Sion and Cokin. These questions should have been asked and answered. If they were, that is one more reason to bury the phantom minutes of the “properly constituted committee.” If Woolsey had not forced the matter at Atlanta, would cheaters be representing be representing America? Would the ACBL have been ready to nab them in the Summer Nationals in Las Vegas one month later? Sure. Take that to the bank.

What if Mr. Goldberg had sent this letter? It was posted at the opening of this chapter. {Repeated for convenience.}

“Messrs. Cokin and Sion were found by the properly constituted committee to have exchanged improper information during the Zonal Grand National competitions in June in Atlanta and the Men's Board-A-Match event of March in Norfolk. As the code was broken in Norfolk, at the BAM event for which you seek redress, as I understand the situation, the ruling must embrace any prior act that can be sustained by the evidence presented to the committee. The committee determined, after this pair had been monitored at Norfolk and Atlanta, that during the play of numerous boards that indeed, unlawful communication had occurred in Norfolk and was validated in Atlanta. Therefore pursuant to your request it is incumbent upon us to “adjust” results based on a situation that is proven to have occurred and adversely impacted the standings of the top two teams in said event. I thank you for bringing this to our attention on a timely basis. I hope that committee decision which was to strip the title from Sternberg, award it to Hann, with a full explanation in an upcoming Bulletin and proper Masterpoint accreditation to follow will be adequate compensation for any emotional and/or other suffering you and your team mates might have enduring awaiting the resolution of this matter. ”

Well, we would not be discussing it now as it would be long-since resolved. And therein lies the rub. This was never addressed. Dismissed? Surely. Put off? of course. So maybe, just maybe we can learn from our mistakes and heal from them. How can we as members move on? Can the BOD do something?

I guess that is up to you. The reader, the member to say what you think might be said. There is more to come. Stay tuned. The next chapter will deal with the expert community, Sternberg, Sontag and Weichsel and the "forbidden fruit".

Comments invited. Please feel free to post on this blog as you see fit.

Appendices

 

Author's Note:

Some people have asked to see some of the referenced materials. And a couple, unfamiliar with the people of that time, asked for a cast of characters. More to follow.

 

 

Index of Appendices

I) Letter sent by the author to Messrs. Sontag, Weichsel and Sternberg.

Mr. Weichsel received the note and elected not to respond directly. He chose a third party. Mr. Sontag was spoken to in person by an expert and friend. They both dismissed the thought of renouncing the title.The author cannot verify the Dr. Sternberg received said notice. Attempts were made to contact Sion and Cokin directly and through third parties. No correspondence from them was received.

II) From the ACBL.

III) Correspondence from Kit Woolsey.

IV) Correspondence from Chip Martel.

V) Correspondence from Bobby Wolff.

VI) Key Individuals.

VII) Documents of Interest to follow.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix 1[1]

 

 

Dear Mr. Sontag, Mr. Weichsel, Dr. Sternberg;

For the past two years I have been investigating a story with regards to a protest that was filed by a team that finished second to your team in Norfolk BAM 1979. I have tried to communicate to you, through colleagues, friends and directly. I have discovered some new relevant facts.  As I wish to be fair to you and your teammates, I am reaching out to you to get your personal opinions of what transpired, and invite you to share any other information you think might be pertinent.  I plan to publish this story soon, after allowing you an opportunity to respond, should you care to do so. My intent here is to recount the events with accuracy. While my article will put forth findings from my personal point of view, please feel free to let me know what your thoughts are on the following (or any other relevant issues):

             The story will reveal:

1) The ACBL knew cheating took place at Norfolk.

2) The ACBL publicly denied that knowledge and in fact, sought to conceal it.

The individual accolades of Messrs. Sontag and Weichsel are fabulous and beyond dispute. They include: Alan Sontag #15 in ACBL rank as of 12/06/07 with 29,632.92 MPs.

WBF World Life Master

Bermuda Bowl Champion 1983

USBC 1983, 91

MEN’S Teams 1971, 1979

LM Men’s Pairs 1971/77

Vanderbilt 72/88/99

Reisinger 73

Spingold 80/82/2000

Men’s Swiss 85/87

Master Mixed Teams 89

Cavendish Club Invitational 76/77

London Sunday Times Pairs

…a few more

Peter Weichsel #16 in ACBL rank with 29, 546.43

WBF World Life Master

Bermuda Bowl Champion 1983

World Mixed Pairs 1990

World Transnational Teams 1999

USBC 1983, 91

MEN’S Teams 1971, 1979

LM Men’s Pairs 1971

Vanderbilt 72/85//89/99

Reisinger 73

Spingold 70, 71 80/82/92

Men’s Swiss 85/87

Master Mixed Teams 76/89

Cavendish Club Invitational 76/77

London Sunday Times Pairs

…a few more

Now let’s be frank, how can Norfolk with all its baggage possibly compares to your legacy of accomplishments? It pales. One has to wonder, how this one, where your team mates cheated, were (later) convicted, expelled, admitted cheating; could possibly resonate with the same level of satisfaction as all your other fabulous accomplishments? The truth is – it can’t. It won’t. As far as I can tell it is the only blemish albeit collaterally - on an otherwise impeccable record.

Would you consider renouncing said title?

That is the question at hand. For you, it is small potatoes, when looked at your careers as a whole.  You might want to throw this minnow back in the pond.

By the way, Zeke Jabbour is # 17 with 29, 185.31

How is that for Karma?

No one is claiming you knew or abetted. There is no agenda to paint you as perpetrators. That said, the story will state the patently obvious – you benefited from their illegal acts; that you were invited to distance yourself from the same.  At this stage, it appears you wish to retain this title, and that is of course your right. I suppose the question is – why? I polled several experts with this question – “if you discovered that you had won an event and your team mates cheated, would you give it up?”

Without exception they said a unanimous – “yes”.  I ask you the same.

Mr. Weichsel saw fit to ask our mutual friend Fred Gitelman (to use Fred to backdoor any concerns you may have is to diminish your friendship therein and to offload upon him that which only you can do) to ask me that his reputation not be impugned. I ask Mr. Weichsel to ask me. To liaise.To discuss. Maybe you think it’s too late. I don’t think so. Maybe you feel an 11^th hour move will look self-serving, I should think it to be an act of sportsmanship. After all, Alan Sontag was “Sportsman of the Year" 1975. Granted, belatedly but still not too late to be meaningful. Leave Fred out of it. His stake here is nothing more than being caught in the middle between two sides of the same coin. One who wants the coin exposed under the glare of the spotlight, the other prefers it safely interred six feet under. And that is OK. I have no interest in involving Fred. I add him to the cc list as a courtesy to him so that he can see I abided by his request. That said I am sure Fred wants to distance himself from this, and I have no intention of communicating through him. I ask you, if you wish to communicate, write me or call me. My home phone is available upon request. Bob Hamman called me at work after asking for the number. Let’s leave the “middlemen” out.

For the record, my story will ask the League to strip said title from team Sternberg. Will they or won’t they? I don’t know. Yes, that may be a dubious proposition.  And yes, we all understand that it does not perforce fall to the second place team. The point being, if one is concerned about one’s reputation, which scenario looks better; voluntarily distancing yourselves from the unlawful acts of your team mates, or retaining the fruits of their crimes?

I respect Fred as a person, as a player, and as a friend. His personal appeal to me on behalf of Mr. Weichsel, struck a chord. I sensed his despair. I am trying to find a means whereby Messrs. Sontag and Weichsel might benefit from this story coming out. After all, you were victims too and collaterally tarnished by the unlawful acts and by your association with Cokin/Sion.

Out of respect for Fred, I share with you a small part of the draft text:

There is neither evidence nor any insinuation that Sontag and Weichsel knew of their team mates’ cheating. Sadly though, they did benefit from said cheating, as they “earned” or more accurately, scored a financial bonus (from the sponsor) and to this day retain that title (Norfolk BAM 1979) at least according to The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, 6^th edition. In an email to Messrs. Sternberg, Sontag and Weichsel they were asked: “how can this title possible resonate with the same level of satisfaction as all your other fabulous achievements?” I asked several experts a similar question:”if you had won an event and later discovered to your horror that your team mates had cheated, would you relinquish that title?” Without exception they said yes, and some offered that they would turn in cheaters, even partners or team mates. No one wanted anything to do with a title that was won unlawfully.

All of which begs the obvious question” What is to be served by clinging to this title?” Sontag and Weichsel knew (after June in Atlanta certainly) that their team mates cheated, that the illegal code of Cokin/Sion was broken at Norfolk and that they never would have won  said event except for the unlawful and egregious acts of their team mates.

More to follow…………

My guess is – no one ever asked or suggested you to “give it up”. So why would you? Your team mates were not convicted of cheating at Norfolk. That they did is a matter of record that I am able to prove beyond a shred of reasonable doubt. If you don’t believe me, ask Chip Martel, Kit Woolsey, Paul Lewis, Mark Jacobus or Brenda Blumenthal.

I explored who you might contact if you wished to distance yourself from the ill-gotten gains of your team mates. Sadly, to this date there is no party I might refer you to save my local ACBL representative, Jonathon Steinberg. He suggests: the ACBL Board of Directors at: bod@acbl.org.

This story will be written. There will be an accounting of the archive of evidence and the cards will fall where they may. If Mr. Weichsel is worried about his reputation, then I ask him to help me. There is no sugar-sweet, “kinder, gentler” way to say you did not cheat, but your teammates did, and thus you won a title illegally. And yes it was a long time ago – irrelevant. There is no statute of limitations on correcting a historical wrong.

Does silence serve your goals in this case? I suppose only you can answer that. This is not a Disney story. But it could still have a happy ending. As it exists now, there are no winners. I ask you to consider tossing this tainted title where it belongs; inside the trash can; not retaining it alongside all your other tremendous achievements.

Your team mate’s unlawful and un-punished (and certainly un-recognized) actions at Norfolk remain a blemish upon our game. I ask you to help me start the healing by acknowledging through a public accounting of the injustice perpetrated therein. It is not about a few players swindled out of a title or two; it is about the integrity of the game. Talk to your friends, fellow experts, and lawyers. God know bridge has enough of them and options traders; consult former team mates and then you decide.

You are luminaries within our game. I ask you to stand up and be counted.

Help me make Norfolk a symbol of redemption, of healing, of sportsmanship.

Regards,

Cam French

Toronto

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

For the record, Sontag and Weichsel were both dismissive of so much as entertaining forfeiting this purloined title. They, in spite of several requests for dialogue, have declined to communicate. They want to keep it. That is their right. Still, one has to wonder why? How can this one compare with their legacy of achievement? It can’t. One wonders, will the ACBL BOD take it away? Quit laughing.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix 2

Cheating

What is it in the eyes of the law?

Cheating - Defined as any behavior outside the Laws intended to give an unfair advantage to one or more players.  This may involve a sole player, partnership, team, or other arrangement involving dishonest activities.  The Bridge Laws merely discuss the Proprieties of Bridge: See Laws 72 - 73 - 74 - 75, which envision nothing worse than Law 73.b.2: See www.Acbl.org for more.

Prearranged Communication

The gravest possible offense is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix III

Hi Cam,

Okay, here is the history.

At the spring nationals in Norfolk, 1979, Chip Martel came to me and said he had suspicions about Sion and Cokin as their mannerisms were different when they played with each other as opposed to when they played with other partners. He asked me what should be done. I told him that about all that could be done was have somebody observe and write down whatever they could and then hope to get lucky and break the code (frankly, at that time I didn't think anything was going on).

So that is what we did. For 3 evening sessions, Brenda Blumenthal (who was friendly with them and so could watch without arousing suspicions) did just that. Those evenings, 5 of us got together (Chip, me, Brenda, Mark Jacobus, and Paul Lewis) and attempted to figure out what was going on. At my insistence we would only look at half of the hands and try to break the code from them, keeping the other half for confirmation if we felt we had broken the code.

For the first 2 nights we got nothing. The problem was that Brenda had no idea what she was looking for, since any signals might have been anything.

On the last session of the BAM teams, we got lucky. Brenda worked out to write down where they placed their pencils. When we looked at what she had written and the hands, it became immediately apparent that one of them was placing their pencil in the center of their scorecard and the other was placing it off to the side when they had a balanced hand. With an unbalanced hand, the pencil was placed along one side of the scorecard. A little more study indicated that where the pencil was determined the shortness -- left was clubs, top diamonds, etc. After we had concluded that this was the code, we broke out the unseen half of the session and checked. The correlation was 100% accurate.

For the record, I'm pretty sure that they were signaling more information than that. But we were never able to pin it down.

As it turned out that was the last session they were playing as partners that tournament -- they had different partners over the weekend. We went to John Hamilton, the national director, and told him the story. He said there was nothing he could do until the Summer nationals in Vegas, and asked us to keep quiet about it. We agreed.

As luck would have it, my team won our district grand nationals. At that time there were zonal playoffs, leading to only 8 teams going to the nationals. And we were to play our zonal playoffs in Atlanta -- and Sion and Cokin were on one of the teams we would be playing.

I called Hamilton and told him this. He said there was nothing he could do.

So I had no choice but to tell my teammates, who then told Jerry Machlin who was to be the director of the zonal playoffs.

There were 4 teams -- would be a semi-finals the first day and a finals the second day. As it turned out, we did not draw them. We had told Jerry the code, and he had a couple of local people observe them. In addition I kibitzed them one quarter, and so did Steve Robinson when we were sitting out. There was no question about it. I could call off the short suit on every hand. The correlation was perfect.

After that day's play (their team won, ours lost), Jerry said there would be a committee meeting on the matter the next day.

There was. The committee heard the various testimony, and found them guilty. The match they had won was forfeited, and the team they had beaten declared the winners of that semi-final match.

A couple of months later there was a national conduct and ethics committed -- I was called in as one of the witnesses. That committee also found them guilty, and expelled them from the league.

After that, they filed a lawsuit, and eventually as I'm sure you know the ACBL let them back in.

That's the gist of the story. I don't know how it can help you, but good luck.

Kit

--

http://www.GammOnLine.com

Your online magazine for better backgammon

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.10/976 - Release Date: 27/08/2007 6:20 PM

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix IV

In a message dated 2/7/2007 8:04:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, martel@cs.ucdavis.edu writes:

Good luck with this. I think it should be done, but I'm not optimistic about your chances.

Here is a short summary of my recollection (Kit agreed this basically jives with his memory):

My main suspicions were raised in Denver (the prior Fall Nationals) where after my team was out of the Reisinger (in part due to a very suspicious bid made by Sion: a 5D response to 1S on something like xx x KQxxxxxx xx) I watched C/S in the Reis. the next day, and concluded they were likely cheating (highlights included a hand where Sion didn't overcall on a 6 card spade suit at the one level when his partner had a stiff, and another hand where Sion made a nullo defensive play but as the cards lay it didn't matter).

In the Vanderbilt in Norfolk I was in a seat (while playing) where I could see Sion's table. I saw him play with Cokin and he was quite active: touching his hair and other places a lot, then with Sternberg he sat in a normal way (not fidgeting at all). After discussing this with others, Brenda Blumenthal (then with Marc Jacobus) agreed to watch C/S in the BAM. After the first session she had noticed a lot of gesturing, but couldn't categorize it well. She also noticed that they seemed to be placing their pencils oddly after they used. We (Kit, Marc and I) all agreed it would make sense to just focus on recording on each deal where they put their pencils.

In the evening session Brenda noted on each hand where C/S placed their pencils after use (they each consistently looked at their hand, wrote down the score from the prior hand, then put the pencil down). After the session, Kit Marc, Brenda and I (maybe others too) took the hand record from the session and had Brenda announce where the pencil was on each deal (relative to each player's convention card). It was quickly obvious that the four sides of the convention card represented the four suits, and that if they had a singleton they would place the pencil on the side representing that suit (or in the middle if no singleton).

Once we had established the theory, it was easy to check, and 100% of the hands matched the data. In addition, to the best of my knowledge, Brenda wrote down the pencil position before she knew whether the other hand had a singleton (she was watching one player but of course couldn't see the other's hand).

  Chip Martel

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix V

Dear Cam,

Attempting to answer your concerns (but briefly),

I had only heard (and a long time ago) that the event in question had expunged the Sion-Cokin team from getting credit for the victory in Norfolk, 1979.  One story should be enough to show you who we are dealing with.  Some ten to fifteen years ago it had come to my attention that none of the "hallowed, cherished" trophies of the ACBL (Reisinger, Spingold, Vanderbilt, Morehead (GNT) and about 10 more) had been annually engraved with that years winners.  Back in those days, Roy Green in charge, when I had some clout, not to mention more energy and dedication, I temporarily corrected that by encouraging all of those trophies to be updated to current status and had a trophy room or somesuch in place to coincide with the renewed effort to start and continue a Hall of Fame section at the ACBL building in Memphis.  What has happened since then is unknown to me and I have long since stopped an annual pilgrimage to Mecca, I mean Memphis.  It is not my ACBL anymore, far from it!

I do not think that the ACBL has a cheating purge rule in effect, mainly because the support for one has to come from somewhere and that somewhere always turns to never, never land.

Yes, cheating has played an enormous part in that somewhat sordid part of bridge history.  You mention some of the more widely known bridge episodes, but in reality there are many more, most of which have been swept under the rug.  It might be compared to corporate wrongdoings during the present era.  So many and depending who was involved and whether on the periphery or directly, determined how much, if any, publicity was given.  Also I know that Jonathon Steinberg, as one of my assistant recorders, helped stop a "bring in my boards and I'll not only win, but become a bridge hero immediately" scam which happened in one of your Toronto clubs (cards wound up getting flushed down the drain in a toilet).  Jonathon did a terrific job on that one and others, by proving, beyond all doubt that another well known pair (who will remain nameless) were wired as they played at National Pair events (since broken up).

I congratulate you on your view of not throwing the baby out with the bathwater (spoken like a debate champion or a lawyer), but I have got far more important things to do (unsuccessfully) than to try and right your particular wrong.  How about getting the Italians to abdicate all or most of the fourteen World Championships they won, which caused partnerships such as Murray-Kehela, Kaplan-Kay, Roth-Root, and many other less well known American and around the world experts to not win.  The above three partnerships never won as many as one World Championship and yet two of them (four people)  went to their graves, knowing that they had been cheated out of them.  For that matter, the teams I was on in 1972,1973, 1974 (including Murray-Kehela), and 1975 all lost to them in the finals, while they were practicing their evil art, but it is doubtful that their victories will be vacated, and if so, we IMO do not deserve the title since what about the teams they beat in the other bracket also being deserving at a shot at the roses.

Neither Sion nor Cokin's confession is privileged, but I cannot imagine what good it will do you to see either.  All they do is admit cheating, inferring they were cheating in every event they played in.  Whether to analyze such a thing with the idea of trying to move up some "baby" to not to be thrown out is too useless, not to mention painful, to all concerned.  Believe me, Cam, it is not because I am too blaise to realize just how much one National Championship could mean to a possible winner, but rather just like when anyone or any team winds up losing, like your racing analogy, perhaps if the driver would have done something different or in other sports, in spite of an umpire or referee's call, the loser might have still overcome the fact alluded to, winning is winning and losing is unfortunately still losing regardless of the shape and size.

Trying to look at life from both sides, "squeaking wheels" get more done than do ones who do not squeak.  You are quite good at it, but it is just that, this time, you are squeaking up the wrong tree.  This tree has lost its branches, is ready for some fireplace, and cannot catch rabbits anymore. You, especially, should appreciate my book due in February.

Good luck! BTW, Sharon and Zeke Jabbour are perhaps two of the finest people I have ever had the pleasure to know, so regards to them.

Bobby

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appendix VI

 

Key Individuals

Expert players in bold.

Code-Breakers at Norfolk

Brenda Blumenthal

Marc Jacobus

Paul Lewis

Chip Martel

Kit Woolsey

ACBL Directors

 

John Hamilton (Norfolk)

Mike Linah (Norfolk)

Jerry Machlin (Atlanta)

 

Winning Team at Norfolk

 

Dr. Jim Sternberg

Allan Cokin

Steve Sion

Peter Weichsel

Alan Sontag

Second Place Team at Norfolk

Mike Cappelletti Sr.

Ron Feldman

Gary Hann

David Hoffner

Zeke Jabbour

David Sacks

ACBL Officials

 

Lee Hazen (attorney)

Richard Goldberg (Executive Secretary and General manager)

Vincent Remey (BOD member)

Leo Spivak (ACBL President)

Bobby Wolff (ACBL President and a list of credentials too long to publish)

Gary Blaiss (ACBL archivist)

 

Other Experts

Amalya Kearse (lawyer, author, judge)

Edgar Kaplan (publisher, The Bridge World)

Jeff Rubens ((publisher, The Bridge World)

Steve Robinson (frequent partner of Kit Woolsey)

Caravelli, Peres, Rosen, Rosenberg, Rotman (GNT champs 1978)

Levin, Seamon, Reinhold, Cokin/Sion (GNT runners-up 1978)

Fred Gitelman (Founder of www.BridgeBase.com)

Bill Root (author, champion)

Bob Hamman (go take up cribbage if you don't know.)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

VII) Documents of Interest.

 

 Coming Soon to a blog near you.

And yes, Chapter IV is almost ready. Will be posted imminently.

email: c.jfrench@roger.com or better yet. post below.

---

[1] Email sent 2/18/08 to Sontag, Weichsel and Sternberg.

Collateral Damage III

 

Richard Goldberg gets a letter from Gary Hann in the fall of 1979. He knows that there is a legal, ethical and moral case for team Hann’s grievance. He also sees Pandora’s Box, where a myriad of litigants, aggrieved customers, professionals, players of all ranks clamouring for retroactive justice should he reassess this case. No this one is best left interred, given the deep-six.

Of course Gary Hann (specifically Hann) and to a lesser extent his team mates (Cappelletti, Hoffner, Sacks, Jabbour, R. Feldman) did not enjoy a lofty profile of the game’s elite (in 1979) as they were peripheral experts, and this would be the first National title for any of them. Hann was as one person put it “not beloved” inside and outside of bridge for his gay lifestyle and “pompous, abrasive” personality. In Hann’s defense I can safely say that had I been cheated out of a National title, and found the League so confrontational that my charming personality might quickly morph to abrasive.

Society at large, certainly within the hierarchy of the ACBL was the proverbial old-school. So gay people, appreciating the prejudices they would encounter, for the most part preferred  to stay in the closet. That was not Hann’s style and some found that offensive. So with Hann carrying the torch for his team, they were far easier to write off than would a team captain of Root’s or Kaplan’s stature. Even some of Hann’s team mates believe that their case was unduly prejudiced with Hann’s involvement, feeling that the same scenario would never have happened to a team with a captain of superior reputation. That is a fair and accurate observation with regards to Hann. But for this job you needed a heavy-weight like Lee Hazen, Amalya Kearse or Bobby Wolff. Undoubtedly when things started to heat up and they needed an advocate they might have thought to enlist the services of a player of standing and/or at least someone without Hann’s unfortunate baggage. With Hann playing point, there would be no empathy from League officials or anyone else. Truth be told, Hann’s lifestyle made it easier, and the lack of a more reputable advocate from within their own team (Cappelletti, Jabbour) hurt too. How did Hann get to be captain? Last to arrive, as is the wont of many.

It would take a magician to pull Norfolk out of the hat and onto the stage, and the ACBL was dedicated to precluding that endgame. Where is Karnac when you need him?

Richard Goldberg on November 7, 1979 did reply to Gary Hann.

“Messrs. Cokin and Sion were found by the properly constituted committee to have exchanged improper information during the Zonal Grand National competitions in June in Atlanta. As I understand the situation, the ruling was made by the committee after this pair had been monitored during the play of numerous boards. The decision, of course, applied only during the matches observed in Atlanta. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Hann, we cannot assume that improper information was exchanged in prior events. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, it would be impractical to “adjust” results based on a situation that might - or might not - have occurred. I do hope you understand.” [1]

Well I understand. That was a bald faced lie, designed to block, frustrate and thwart Hann’s efforts on behalf of his team. No more, no less. Obsessed with the dismal prospect of litigation, the ACBL concocted an alibi for cheaters. How did we get to this sad state?

Without the evidence gathered at Norfolk, there would be no case to explore at Atlanta, Vegas or anywhere else. The seed of decoding was germinated at Norfolk. Woolsey and company (and by extension, the directors who asked them to stand down) knew that cheating happened at Norfolk. They did the ACBL a favour by waiting for the ACBL to line up the evidence to produce a bullet-proof case. The fruits of their labour were merely harvested in Atlanta, and only because Woolsey forced the issue. The League was not ready at Norfolk, and it was no further prepared at Atlanta. That says it all. Remember, a full calendar year prior (i.e. June 1978) Cokin and Sion with different team mates finished second in the GNTs to Caravelli, Peres, Rosen, Rosenberg, Rotman. Cheating, (in 1978) and still second. No one saw the writing on the wall, or if they did, they weren’t sharing their insight.

There was plenty of evidence that “improper information was exchanged in prior events.” Just ask Kit Woolsey, Marc Jacobus, Chip Martel, and Brenda Blumenthal. But no, we won’t ask questions when we know the answers are not what we want to hear. It may have been an inquiry, but it was narrow in scope. It deliberately avoided the patently obvious, Norfolk. And if someone in Memphis had decided to investigate Cokin and Sion subsequent to Norfolk, like in March, April, May and June; when they knew  - certainly they would have accumulated lots of evidence of "prior misconduct". Certainly if you are not looking for it, you will not find it. Due to the state of the match in June, it is safe to say ACBL headquarters was in turtle mode, seeing no evil, hearing no evil and oblivious to how to investigate and cope with cheating.

Mr. Goldberg, in spite of the woeful disclaimer “as I understand it”, understood only too well the repercussions of his decision. After all, when directors Hamilton and Linah bought time in March, by securing the Woolsey group’s silence until the ACBL could create a plan to nab the perpetrators; they kicked the ball upstairs hoping for some leadership and guidance. That window of opportunity was squandered. Woolsey calls Hamilton in June, worried about facing cheaters for the zonal GNTs and what does he get?

“Nothing we can do.” In essence, those in the know were frozen like deer in the headlights. Coping with the prospect of cheating was so far down the priority list that three months later no plan was launched to cope with the situation. Did Goldberg, Remey and Spivak know of the fallout at Norfolk? You bet they did.

According to Ron Feldman and a couple of former ACBL insiders, Vince Remey was apoplectic at the prospect of so much as investigating one “prior act of misconduct”. The floodgates might open, the hordes cheated at Regionals, Nationals, Spingolds, GNTs, Sectionals, where would it end? And those cheated might demand some sort of compensation and/or allege the League should have known or at least ought to have known about cheating, and enforced protocols to catch and prevent it. Remey and ACBL heavy-weights were deservingly fearful. They feared a tsunami of liability. Jabbour and his team mates were collateral damage, an acceptable loss to attain the desired goal, no litigation.

Their fear motivated them to slam shut Pandora’s Box, but failed to induce them to develop a protocol to deal with cheating. Their own inability to deal with cheating placed them in the crosshairs, there was no way out. But at Atlanta, and the GNT trials (see above, Woolsey) all hell breaks loose. The cat is out of the bag, no video evidence is accrued. Once Woolsey briefed the director, a couple of experts, eye-witnesses and “monitors”, they were able to corroborate his allegations. It was a secret that could no longer be kept. The word was out.

The sad part is the League was derelict. Unprepared. Foreseeing the fallout, they closed ranks and team Hann (and others who lost tainted tournaments) would be collateral damage. Perhaps Dr. Sternberg would demand his money back if another team were subsequently declared winners, stripping the title off his mantelpiece. Or worse at least from an ACBL perspective, would he accuse the ACBL of conspiracy, fraud, and anti-trust, make a few headlines and rattle some sabres? Who knows what would follow? Would other paying customers follow suit? Where would it end? Would the ACBL be liable for failing to detect these earlier and therefore bringing scores of accomplishments into dispute? Better to slam shut Pandora’s Box.

Mr. Goldberg’s claims are dismissed with ease. As Woolsey noted:

“There is no dispute that Sion and Cokin were cheating. And there is no question that they were doing so in the BAM event, since that was the event where we gathered the data from which we were able to break a piece of their code.[2]”

In short, the entire foundation of the case against Cokin/Sion was accrued at Norfolk.

So for the President of the ACBL to state “we cannot assume that improper information was exchanged in prior events” is a cover-up. This was nothing more than a blatant attempt to stop the bleeding. There is little doubt that everyone at Memphis was wondering, if this case succeeds, what will ensue? It was not about restoring “justice”, it was about crisis management and team Hann was the poster child for collateral damage.

Recognizing this apparent flood of potential litigants, the league changed the Disciplinary Code of Conduct. (DOC) The change stated that if you lost an event to cheaters, unless you could prove the same before the end of “the applicable correction period” then the title will be “vacated” and the second/third/forth place contestants do not (unlike the Olympics for example) advance in rank. Exactly when this was changed remains a mystery as no one (at the ACBL) was willing to state that for the record beyond this from Gary Blaiss, ACBL archivist.

“In the 1977 Code of Disciplinary Regulations the wording is very similar {to 1979} except that it states after the termination of the tournament rather than termination of the applicable correction period. So this section has existed pretty much unchanged from at least 1977 and probably longer.” [3]

The bottom lines is, if you lose to cheaters and fail to establish the same “within the applicable correction period”, you are out of luck. Cheaters win, you lose, the second place team loses, in short - everyone loses.

Due to the intricacies of bridge the fact that it is (certainly in BAM and Matchpoints) it is not just two teams in head to head completion. More likely, as in this case, the whole field has been tainted. Some contend it is not a simple as, for example - the Olympics. Still, the solution to vacate the title strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why allow cheaters to prevail, to in effect – hijack an entire event?

Everyone enters a tournament, championship or competition to win. Sure, it is nice to see old friends but at the end of the day, especially at the upper echelon of any game or sport, it is about winning. To stage an event and have the winner stripped of their title, and leave the title “vacant”…well that is an affront to the entire field. It may be politically correct (and/or solve some legal issues) but as a pragmatic solution; it stinks.

Try to imagine another event where no winner or a title vacant exists. If Dale Earnhardt rams the race-leader Jeff Gordon, knocking him out of the race and is deemed to have violated the rules, someone (maybe not Earnhardt) still wins the race. If an Olympic medalist pees into the bottle and a positive test result ensues; he or she is stripped of their medal and those below advance in rank. If Gaylord Perry doctors the baseball in game seven of the World Series, he might get tossed and his team may win or lose. The point being, every championship has a winner. You don’t compete to lose. And you certainly don’t compete to lose to cheaters and then discover there is no way to win. Through their acts of cheating and a dubious amendment to the DOC, the entire event is despoiled for all. No way to win. Let’s advertise that. That will surely draw the paying customers. The vacating the title option is a reaction to a preconceived fear of litigation and liability. As far as I can tell, no such provision exists in any other sport. What does that say? The ACBL would have us believe that is a testament to the uniqueness of their game. Maybe they should give some thought to being a delusional party of one.

Certainly the ACBL directors have a fiduciary duty to their members. That includes team Hann, but for now let’s assume they are collateral to the bigger scheme of things. It is reasonable to assume that Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Spivak and Mr. Remey honestly believed they were doing what was best for the league. What they failed to see was that the league’s policies and procedures with regards to cheating were antiquated. That Hamilton told Woolsey “nothing can be done” between March and July says it all. No mechanisms, protocols or plan was available, even months after Norfolk. This should have served as a wake-up – not to slam shut the door of exploration on prior wrong-doings, but to develop a plan, with the cooperation and involvement of the expert community.

So what should be done now? Here are a few suggestions. Let’s start with appointing a panel, with a couple of lawyers, experts and ACBL executive officers and develop a protocol. Invite the membership. Publish the results, invite submissions from members and make it clear; cheating will be prosecuted aggressively as it represents a cancer upon the game. No doubt that is the policy as it presently exists. I would expect the ACBL to say so. It’s a good sound bite. Let’s give it some fangs to go with the bark.

We can all empathize with Mr. Remey’s lament that “every tournament these guys won in the last 10 years will be subject to review”. That scenario left the lawyers salivating at endless litigation, and the league justifiably terrified of the same. What made this case different? Why should it be re-visited? Why not leave it buried, its skeletons safely closeted?

The answer is - this case is unique. The team followed the rules of the time. David Sacks went to the director well within the “applicable correction period”. He was told the result “would be recorded”. His request was brushed aside due to knowledge shared by the directors, not privy to him or his teammates. What Sacks could not know because no one could tell him, was the directors’ hands were tied. Were they supposed to grant his request and possibly jeopardize the biggest cheating scandal in American history? Not bloody likely. Hamilton and Linah were handcuffed and that is why they doffed off the request. The request risked exposing everything. That could not be allowed to happen.

What is lacking here is more than the euphemistic closure; what is missing is the lack of due process. That said Hamilton and Linah served their employer well. I wonder (they are long since deceased) how they felt about how their roles impacted the result of Norfolk? They had cause to be proud of their preemptive actions (deferring the committee hearing and securing the silence of Woolsey et.al.) and at the same time chagrined by the duplicity of the League.

Laying out the facts in this case is one thing. Determining what should be done about and how we as the bridge community can learn from this to enhance the integrity of the game we love - is another. Next chapter I am going to talk about what might happen. I invite you, bridge players to make your feelings clear.

---

[1] See the Appendices for the letter in its entirety.

[2] Kit Woolsey in an email letter to the author.

[3] Gary Blaiss, ACBL archivist in an email to the author.

Collateral Damage II

 

Sex, Lies, no Videotape

 

 

Sorry (well not really) for the tantalizing headline. There was no sex, certainly no videotape but the lies climb out of their coffins like zombies in a horror flick. Herein the story gets even more incredible. Apparently there were no minutes kept of said Conducts and Ethics committee hearing pursuant to the events of Atlanta, GNTs 1979. I found that difficult not only to believe but to accept. One thing is for sure – there would be no dusting off of the minutes (if they indeed existed) for a prying journalist to view. So all we have is witnesses and inferences.

Imagine you are Richard Goldberg, head honcho of the ACBL in 1979 (note: his title was General Manager and Executive Secretary), which the ACBL has now changed to CEO, and here you face this nightmare in Atlanta from the Zonal playoffs of the Grand National teams. If the truth comes out, that the cheating of Sion and Cokin at Norfolk has been documented by high level players, and that the ACBL itself has short-circuited the process by suppressing damming information generated by Woolsey and friends, who knows where that path leads? Not satisfied to obstruct Hann's pursuit of justice, Richard Goldberg in a letter to Hann's team denied any knowledge that Sion and Cokin were cheating prior to Atlanta. Not only were Cokin and Sion cheating in Norfolk, but as Bobby Wolff notes in an email correspondence; Cokin admits to cheating in "basically every event they ever played in".

The sanctioning body for the tournament, the ACBL, participated in a cover-up of the situation, by lying about what they did and did not know.

Now finally the ACBL has been forced to face the facts that Cokin/Sion were cheating in the GNTs (June. Atlanta) and the Spring Nationals in Norfolk, and for who knows how long previously.

As for this committee, how do you prosecute the offenders? Lee Hazen was charged with that duty and I will wager that Mr. Hazen and Mr. Goldberg and a few other ACBL heavyweights discussed how to address this issue. What would Mr. Hazen ask the code-breakers?

1) When was this code broken?

2) Where was this code broken?

3) Did you verify it prior to Atlanta? 

4) Who knew and how and when did they know?

If Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Hazen were capable, and their management of this tender issue suggests they stick- handled through this like Wayne Gretzky, then they had to ensure that Norfolk was a non-issue. Prior history, be it Norfolk, New York or Timbuktu was to be walked around like minefield. After all if the testimony disclosed that the code was broken at Norfolk, then Goldberg’s[5] claims to Gary Hann of

“The decision, of course, applied only during the matches observed in Atlanta. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Hann, we cannot assume that improper information was exchanged in prior events". (Emphasis added.)

would be patently false. It was false of course. He had to know. He also knew that those questions could never be raised by Mr. Hazen as they opened up the gateway to litigation, liability and a legal nightmare. Or, if indeed they were asked (which seems to me to be a logical line of questioning) no minutes would be available to the Members as they were too incriminating. Would the defense ask those questions? Sure, right after the question every defense attorney inevitably asks his client: “When did you stop beating your wife?”

No one wanted to know (at least for the record) of any prior misconduct of Cokin and Sion. One full calendar year earlier, (1978) Sion and Cokin with team mates Levin, Reinhold and Seamon had been runners-up in the GNTs. In 1977, both were in the top 10 of McKenny Race. How long had this been going on? What if the word got out? How many people would come forth with claims of being cheated? The floodgates could open. Mr. Goldberg was far too clever to allow that to happen on his watch. No way. Atlanta was in play, everything prior, was out-of bounds an