Boris Schapiro - Bridge Career - 1965 Bermuda Bowl Accusation

1965 Bermuda Bowl Accusation

Schapiro was accused of cheating in the 1965 Bermuda Bowl in Buenos Aires, sometimes called the "Buenos Aires affair". Allegedly, he and his partner Terence Reese were signaling to each other the length of their hearts suit.

American players Dorothy Hayden and B. Jay Becker felt that the British pair were holding their cards with their fingers arranged in unusual ways. They conferred with Alan Truscott, the The New York Times bridge editor, and agreed they would all observe Reese–Schapiro and record how many fingers were visible when each held his cards in each hand. Comparing their notes with the official hand records seemed to show that the numbers of fingers indicated the number of hearts held. One finger visible meant one heart card. Two fingers together meant two hearts, while two fingers spread in a "V" shape meant five; similarly three fingers denoted three or six hearts and four fingers denoted four or seven. No signal for a heart void was suggested.

Several other eyewitnesses including British team captain Ralph Swimer became convinced of the truth of the accusations. Later comparisons with hand records seemed to confirm that the code remained consistent when Reese and Schapiro were partners, but disappeared when they played with other partners. The matter was then reported to World Bridge Federation (WBF) officials for adjudication.

In hearings held immediately, the WBF decided that Reese and Schapiro were guilty, banned them from the remainder of the Bermuda Bowl, and negotiated an agreement with Captain Swimer officially to forfeit all matches previously won during the tournament. The WBF then referred the matter to the British Bridge League (BBL) for further action, if any.

At that time Schapiro averred he would never again compete internationally, but he later played in European and world senior events.

The BBL convened its own enquiry into the matter under the direction of Sir John Foster QC and General Lord Bourne. After many months taking testimony from eyewitnesses, bridge analysts, and character witnesses, the so-called Foster Enquiry concluded that Reese and Schapiro had not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore acquitted them. Several factors must have played a part in this decision, especially the fact that little or no connection could be made between the claimed signals and the results at the table. Reese and Schapiro had not played especially well in Buenos Aires; Reese commented later that no pair were likely to cheat in a way that did not help them win. A simple system to signal whether a player's cards were good or poor for his bid would be almost certain to yield rich dividends.

In The Story of an Accusation (1966), Reese went through every single hand presented by the 'prosecution'. He argued both that the bidding was clear by the principles of the Acol bidding system they were using and that they might have used information about the heart suit in several ways, had it been available. Truscott also wrote his account, concentrating on the eyewitness observations and reaching the opposite general conclusion. Neither side changed its opinions and a considerable rift developed in the bridge world.

There had been and continued to be other accusations of cheating in high-level bridge. In 1975 two members of the Italian national team were accused during the Bermuda Bowl knock-out, again by members of the American team. Soon after, world championship team events and some others addressed the opportunity for illegal signaling between partners by introducing screens that prevent partners from seeing each other (one screen divides the table diagonally).

Read more about this topic:  Boris Schapiro, Bridge Career

Famous quotes containing the words bowl and/or accusation:

    Three wise men of Gotham
    Went to sea in a bowl;
    If the bowl had been stronger,
    My story would have been longer.
    Mother Goose (fl. 17th–18th century. Three wise men of Gotham (l. 1–4)

    The only obligation to which in advance we may hold a novel, without incurring the accusation of being arbitrary, is that it be interesting.
    Henry James (1843–1916)