text:
There are many archetypes for the father figure. The most disturbing one is probably the domineering task master whose "love" comes at a cost that can never be paid. That cost is absolute deference, obedience, compliance and respect and, to him, deference, obedience and compliance are the proof of proper respect. He finds humor in 'jokes' which categorize and belittle others because they support his own view of his natural superiority over "lesser" (i.e. – different) people. This archetype believes that his children also begin their life owing him a debt that can never be paid back, life itself. As such, his children are his property, chattel that he has paid for. He sees himself as all-knowing, all-powerful and always right. He is focused on rules and control. He will not tolerate backtalk or even being questioned. He not only wants to instill fear in his children, he wants them to fear that, even if they somehow do something that he sees as wrong without his knowing about it, they will still face retribution and punishment for eternity from a vengeful God; the same God who gives the father-figure his authority by giving him children. This father-figure believes that his right to have power over others is given to him directly by God; that his power and authority cannot be questioned or limited by anyone, and that few in the world are his equals. His God has also given him the ultimate power, the power to banish to the wilderness those who violate his given order. What he gives, he can (and will) take.
This archetype is what the Republican Party has become.
Like most political observers, I have watched with fascination the Republican Party's rapid descent into madness throughout the course of the year. In fact, that breakdown has been so spectacular that even people who DON'T widely follow politics or news are aware of it, whether they recognize it or not. While I have heard much discussion of what they are doing, I have not, however, heard anyone pinpoint a single core cause of that breakdown. We have plenty of "what" being talked about but little to none of "why". As I have spoken of before, people are focused on the "symptoms" of a disease without identifying the "disease" itself. Two recent incidences with my own brother gave me a clue about what that "disease" actually is. The core of the Republican Party is simply an authoritarian "father" who is mad that their "dependents" (the American People) aren't respecting or listening to them anymore. They are angry because they have no control over their "children" and authoritarians THRIVE on being in control.
The Authoritarian Personality was a 1950 book written by UC-Berkeley psychologists Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel Levinson,, and Nevitt Sanford. In their book, they first described the "authoritarian personality" theory of personality. Their research lead them to the conclusion that this personality is developed by psychodynamic, childhood experiences which make them predisposed to follow the dictates of a strong leader and traditional, conventional values. They identified nine traits, which they hypothesized were clustered together as a result of those experiences, which identified this personality type:
• Anti-intraception;
• Authoritarian Aggression;
• Authoritarian Submission;
• Conventionalism;
• Destructiveness and Cynicism;
• Exaggerated Concerns over Sexuality;
• Power and "Toughness";
• Projectivity; and
• Stereotyping and Superstition.
In 1981, Canadian psychologist, Bob Altemeyer, gave us a refinement of the authoritarian personality theory, which he introduced as the concept of "right-wing authoritarianism". Altemeyer found that only three of those nine traits correlated together:
• Authoritarian Aggression (a general aggressiveness directed against "deviants", outgroups, and other people that are perceived to be targets according to established authorities.)
• Authoritarian Submission (a high degree of submissiveness to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.); and
• Conventionalism (a high degree of adherence to the traditions and social norms that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities, and a belief that others in one's society should also be required to adhere to these norms.)
The "right-wing" in right-wing authoritarianism does not necessarily refer to someone's politics, but rather to their psychological preferences and personality. It means that the person tends to follow the established conventions and authorities in society. In theory, the authoritarian personality could have either conservative or liberal political views.
In his 1996 paper, The Authoritarian Specter, Altemeyer reported that his research indicated that right-wing authoritarians tend to exhibit cognitive errors and symptoms of faulty reasoning. Specifically, they are more likely to make incorrect inferences from evidence and to hold contradictory ideas that are the result of compartmentalized thinking. They are also more likely to uncritically accept insufficient evidence that supports their beliefs, and they are less likely to acknowledge their own limitations. The RWA-scale reliably correlates with political party affiliation, reactions to Watergate, pro-capitalist beliefs, religious orthodoxy, and acceptance of covert governmental activities such as illegal wiretaps. Altemeyer found that those who scored highly on the RWA-scale are likely to exhibit several common traits. These personalities tend to:
• Be Highly Nationalistic;
• Have Conservative Economic Philosophies;
• Not value Social Equality;
• Oppose Abortion;
• Oppose Gun Control; and
• Support Capital Punishment.
In role-playing situations, Altemeyer found that authoritarians tend to seek dominance over others by being competitive and destructive instead of cooperative. In his study, sixty-eight authoritarians played a three-hour simulation of the Earth's future entitled the "Global Change Game". While a comparison game played by individuals with low RWA scores resulted in world peace and widespread international cooperation, the simulation by authoritarians became highly militarized and eventually entered the stage of nuclear war. By the end of the high RWA game, the entire population of the earth was declared dead.
Research by D. J. Narby, B. L. Cutler & G. Moran (1993) found that authoritarians are generally more favorable to punishment and control than personal freedom and diversity. For example, they are more willing to support the suspension or abolishment of constitutional guarantees of liberty such as the Bill of Rights… at least where those guarantees protect others who they, themselves, have judged to be inferior. They are also more likely to advocate strict, punitive sentences for criminals. Researches by J. Duckitt & B. Farre (1994) and by M.B. Goodman & B. Moradi (2008) found that people with high RWA scores report that they obtain personal satisfaction from punishing those who they perceive as criminals, and that they tend to be ethnocentric and prejudiced against racial and ethnic minorities, and homosexuals.
The modern Republican Party has been dominated by individuals who are not just authoritarian personalities; they are right-wing authoritarian personalities. Since the period following the War Between the States, they have moved steadily away from being a populist party to being a party focused on being able to exert their will on others, even while in the minority. Money, power and political manipulations made them a corrupt party of "elites" who viewed themselves as being superior to those they "governed". They used demogoguery as a strategy to gain political power by appealing to the public's prejudices, emotions, fears, and expectations. They mastered the use of impassioned rhetoric, propaganda and abductive reasoning, often through the use of nationalistic, populist, moralist and / or religious themes.
The current schizophrenic behavior of the Republican Party began, in my opinion, with the almost worshipful attitude of the conservative and Christian far-right to their mythology of Ronald Reagan. They see him as their Moses, who was leading them to their conservative "Promised Land". In 1994, this Promised Land seemed to be within sight with their takeover of both Houses of Congress. Suddenly, the Republican Party was filled with average, everyday people who not only viewed themselves as being elite, but also as being responsible for "fixing" what they saw as the broken soul of America. The big problem is that, by definition, average, everyday people cannot BE elite. This was the political equivalent of the common people of France deposing their nobility and establishing their "committees of the people" to rule instead. As happened in France, once they were in power, they also eventually turned on those among themselves who they did not see as supporting the orthodoxy or dogma of their revolution. Their equivalence was creating the label "Republican In Name Only", or RINO. With that label they would work to purge their own ranks of those who were not "pure enough" in their belief in the "correct" orthodoxy, essentually removing the very real existence and accomplishments of the historical moderate and liberal wings of their party from their mythology.
Regardless of what the Republicans "promised" in their infamous Contract With America, once they gained the power and positions they believed were ordained for them, they moved to solidify their control over our government by making the Party (rather than the individual elected members) the dominant feature of American Government. They changed rules for determining committee chairs from being based on seniority to being based on how well members followed the dictates of the party. They collectivised their party to minimize the power of individual members and maximize the power of the party itself. Again, the similarities (in action, if not degree) to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror are remarkable. At this point, they became "Daddy", saying to America "Do what I tell you to do or I will punish you."
Following in the footsteps of their mythology's greatest human hero, Ronald Reagan (under whose administration, for example, federal funds and tax dollars were withheld from states which would not comply with federal demands for conformance on issues like drinking, drugs, speed limits, etc. – essentially blackmailing the states), the Republican controlled Congress with a view to its own dominance, power, and control over the "misguided" states and the people who did not want to do what "Daddy" told or expected them to do. They also envisioned an America under their rule in perpetuity (Karl Roves infamous "permanent majority"). Regardless of their often espoused support of states' rights (an idea which is not found in The Constitution, contrary to the beliefs of many), they only want the states to be independent of their federal government when the states are ruling as the Party wants them to. In all other cases, they believe that their obligation as the "rulers" of our federal government is to impose THEIR will upon the states when the states aren't "competent enough" to agree with them.
Even with the 1995 Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, their first since 1955, they were still "impeded" in their movement towards creating the America they envisioned by having a moderate Democrat, Bill Clinton, as President. Thus, much of their effort was to limit, if not remove altogether, political resistance against their power, including their impeachment of Clinton. In 2000, however, all of their wet dreams o be on the verge of coming true with elevation of George W. Bush to the Presidency. Not only did they get a majority in the House, once seated, on January 20, 2001, Dick Cheney, as President of the Senate, turned an evenly split Senate into one with a majority controlled by the Republican members. During this period, there was, of course, no talk or consideration of working with the members from the Democratic Party and their ideal of bipartisanship was the Democratic members doing what their Republican masters wanted them to do. This, of course, went so well that Republican Senator Jeffords (Vermont), holding the Senate seat that had been continuously held by Republicans for the longest period in American history (144 years), quit the party and became an Independent who caucused with the Democrats. This was the first time we, as a nation, got to see how the modern Republican Party would react to being challenged in its holding political dominance and absolute power. How many of us remember THAT little brouhaha?
Starting in 2003, the Republican Party did have complete control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress… and they had their eye on having the opportunity to also stack the Supreme Court with those who shared their vision of America. I won't rehash what those of us who opposed Bush and the far-right conservatives believe about how he governed and what was done to damage The Constitution under their period of dominance. Suffice it to say that we welcomed the slight shift in power which gave the Democrats narrow control of both Houses of Congress a mere four years later. It was at this time that "Daddy" really started to go seriously insane. What happened in 2008, of course, drove "Daddy" completely over the edge of reason.
What I see now in the Republican Party is the equivalent of Cole Oyl, Olive Oyl's father in the Popeye cartoons and movie, running around telling everyone "You owe me an apology!" The Republican Party has become politically impotent and its impotence has caused rage among the far-right wing of the Party. They are trying to find something, ANYTHING to latch onto to demonstrate to others that they aren't impotent. Their quest, however, keeps getting more and more trivial, pedantic and ridiculous with each passing week. They are so blinded by their impotent rage that they are once again attacking those among their own ranks who question the power that they believe is their divine right by not ascribing to the "proper" orthodoxy, dogma and "tenets of faith" as the "true believers". Like any angry, old authoritarian confronted with their impotence, they are searching for a political orgasm.
Yes, that is what I believe it comes down to… they can't get themselves off politically. That is, in my opinion, the only explanation for their increasingly erratic and dangerous actions… impotent rage. They have a collective need to not only feel that they are vibrant and virile but also that they can reproduce. I believe that all sociological creations of Man (governments, clubs, businesses, etc.) can be viewed and understood by seeing them as living organisms. They all have the same needs and desires of a living organism and, as a living organism, the far-right Republicans see themselves being replaced by other organisms that do not come from their own seed; they suddenly see themselves as mortal and approaching an ignoble end. Unfortunately, there is no little blue pill that they can take to compensate for their electile dysfunction.
Like a once vibrant and dominant man reduced to wearing diapers and drooling; like an alpha-male pack animal who has lost his teeth, those members of the Republican party who are making ever greater fools of themselves are filled with rage against those who robbed them of what they see as their rightful place in American life. In their rage to reclaim their "rightful" place in society they will use any and every means at their disposal to destroy what they can't have for themselves. If they can't be in control of our country then they will reduce it to ashes so that there won't be a country for anyone else to be in control off. It is an attitude that the world has seen before. That is the final lesson that "Daddy" has to teach his errant and ungrateful children… that it is easier to destroy a nation than it is to build one.
Vive' la Revolution.
Rhys M. Blavier
Romayor, Texas
"Truth, Justice and Honor… but, above all, Honor"
© Copyright 2009 by Rhys M. Blavier
Thank you for reading this article. Please read my other articles and let me know what you think. I am writing them not to preach or to hear myself think but to try to create dialogs, debates and discussions on the nature of our government and how we can build upon and improve it based on what we have seen and learned over the course of the 225 years of The American Experiment.
This is a link to Bob Altemeyer's book 'The Authoritarians' which you can read on-line:


text:
Introducing the Drew Athena shoes, one of the latest additions to our line of athletic footwear. Drew athena women's athletic shoes offer all the comfort features of a Drew, so that you can run, jog or simply walk with amazing all-day comfort. Double depth with two removable insoles creates space for custom orthotics or simply some extra toe room. Drew Athena shoes are breathable, complete with mesh vamp, quarter linings and maximum padding where you need it most.
HCPCS Code A5500

subset: commoncrawl


text:
These are documents or tools that are used in Dan Gauthier's Lab. Most of these have been created by members of the group. Because they were created primarily for our use, there may be references or assumptions which do not make sense outside of that context. We apologize for any such occurrences and will address them as we can.
Locally Generated Documents
|Potassium Matrix Elements
Mathematica Notebook (73k)
PDF (191k)
|This is a Mathematica notebook that calculates the dipole matrix elements for 39K.
|Magnetic field coils
Mathematica Notebook (100k)
PDF (31k)
|This is a Mathematica notebook that calculates magnetic fields from coaxial magnetic field coils. There can be an arbitrary number of coils, with independant radius, position, current and number of turns. The only restriction is that they must all share the same axis.
|A Practical Laser Interlock
PostScript (134k)
PDF (48k)
|Document describing the design of our laser interlock system.
|Coherent 899-21 Linewidth Improvement (under construction)
PostScript ()
|A description and explanation of the modifications made to our Ti:S laser system
|Using LEDs for imaging
PDF (390k)
|An unpublished paper discussing the use of ultra-high-power (Luxeon) light emitting diodes for illuminating cardiac tissue stained with a voltage-senstivie dye. Written in 2005.
Equipment Manuals and Schematics
|HP 230B Manual
|The operation and service manual for a Hewlett-Packard model 230B RF Power Amplifier. This was scanned from a paper manual.
|Burleigh RC-44 Manual
PDF (399k)
|The instruction manual for a Burleigh RC-44 Ramp Generator. These ramp generators are made to drive scanning optical cavities.
|Burleigh RC-43/44 Schematics
PDF (405k)
|Schematics for Burleigh RC-43 and RC-44 Ramp Generators. These ramp generators are made to drive scanning optical cavities.


text:
compete against (someone or something)(redirected from competing against one)
compete against (someone or something)
To work or put forth effort against someone or something in an attempt to do something successfully. I'm probably competing against a hundred people for this job. Instead of competing against the loud music out here, let's go inside and talk.
compete against someone
to contend against someone; to play against someone in a game or contest. I don't see how I can compete against all of them. She refused to compete against her own brothers.
compete against something
to struggle against something; to seem to be in a contest with something. It was hard to be heard. I was competing against the noise of construction. Please stop talking. I do not wish to compete against the audience when I lecture.


text:
Uploaded: 2012-06-30 09:59:21
Same is the case with trendy looking trx workouts.
The following trx strpas sale is adjustable at the same time, providing this trouble-free to make use of for virtually every everyone.
Straps previously defined in addition phase alterations, to top TRX Australia all away, the full package deal has a weight of simply a number of lbs.
A strap dangles within the ceiling, special coaches are actually while using the TRX Australia for assorted decades.
Most importantly down, the full offer Cheap TRX UK about solely various pounds.
Whether it is trx workouts or fashion accessories all means a lot for modern society of today.


text:
Art Collections Online
Black and White Figure- Portrait of the Artist's Wife, Frances (1901-1985)
RICHARDS, Ceri Giraldus (1903 - 1971)
© Estate of Ceri Richards 2002. All rights reserved DACS
Date: 1930
Media: oil on canvas
Size: 76.6 x 61.5 cm
Acquired: 1972; Purchase
Accession Number: NMW A 2050
Born in Dunvant, Richards studied at Swansea School of Art and the Royal College. There a fellow student was Frances Clayton (1901-85), whom he married in 1929. Richards was brought up in a musical family and music is a recurrent theme in his art. Here his wife poses beside a piano. The style of this portrait is reminiscent of Matisse, a major influence on the artist since 1924.


text:
Home >> Course Descriptions >> College of Arts and Sciences
Environmental Regulations and Policies
Three semester hours.
A study of American Environmental Regulations. Topics include Clean Water Act, RCRA, UST, CERCLA, EPCRA, NEPA, TSCA, OSHA, FIFRA. Will include site visits.
Home - General Information - Student Services -
Academic Undergraduate Regulations -
Undergraduate Degrees - Academic Graduate Regulations -
Graduate Degrees - Course Descriptions - Faculty -
Appendix A - Appendix B - Appendix C - Appendix D


text:
On a KTM, your riding gear should be able to handle anything the world can throw at you, whether it's an alpine pass, a bone-shaking trail or simply the urban jungle. That's why KTM and Alpinestars have teamed up to create two sets of jackets that combine extreme versatility with outstanding performance, in a wide range of circumstances. The MANAGUA and DURBAN GTX TECH-AIR™ gears are KTM PowerWear's premium offering for discerning ADVENTURE riders, the former best suited to street riding, while the latter is equally happy in light offroad conditions.
The all set and perfectly equipped MANAGUA GTX Tech-Air™ and DURBAN GTX Tech-Air™ jackets are premium Gore-Tex® jackets providing the rider with all of the necessary comfort and safety features of the highest standard. Both jackets are made from a high-quality combination of materials featuring reflective details and reinforced by CE-certified protectors on the shoulders and elbows, resulting in low weight, durability and optimal protection.
The MANAGUA GTX Tech-Air™ jacket is 100% street oriented. The fully laminated and lightweight GORE-TEX® outer material is padded with a removable thermal lining. An innovative ventilation system guarantees perfect comfort under all conditions. In addition to being perfect for the street, the DURBAN GTX Tech-Air™ jacket is equally well-suited to light offroad use and adventure touring. It features an ultra-lightweight removable Gore-Tex® membrane with micro-fleece lining. Zippered air intakes and exhausts sealed against all the wind and rain nature can throw at them, as well as storage space for a two-liter bladder hydration system, cater for perfect comfort while riding.


text:
Slick Rick Picks Up Custom Diamond Jewelry From Avianne & Co Jewelers [StreetHeat Submitted]
"The infamous Slick Rick drops by Avianne & Co
Jewelers to pick up a set of custom diamond
jewelry. A fully iced out men's diamond Ace
pendant, flooded in blue and white diamonds. We
are the absolute number 1 source for custom
diamond pendants, diamond pinky rings, and hip hop
jewelry among athletes and entertainers." For more
Hip Hop Diamond Jewelry, log onto
www.AvianneAndCo.com or call us at 888-423- 1004.
Follow us @AvianneJewelers
Like us at Facebook.com/AvianneJewelers
Follow your jewelers:
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
A recent metobolomics study by researchers from Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center in Richmond found that impaired peroxisomal oxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) is associated with the progression of nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The study also found significantly higher plasma monounsaturated fatty acids in the blood of patients with NAFL and NASH. Full findings appear in the December issue of Hepatology, a journal published by Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) affects a third of the U.S. adult population, with many cases found in obese individuals. NAFLD ranges from NAFL, a benign condition where fat accumulates in the liver of people who drink little or no alcohol, to a more serious state known as NASH where inflammation or scarring of the liver occurs and which can progress to liver failure.
Study participants included 50 in a lean normal control, 25 subjects with NAFL and 50 patients with NASH. Researchers classified the NAFL group by a diagnosis of fatty liver with the presence of accumulated liver fat of at least grade 1 severity according to the NASH Clinical Research Network criteria. The NASH group included those with at least a grade 1 severity in accumulated liver fat, inflammation and cytologic ballooning of at least grade 1 severity in each. The nonalcoholic nature of the disease was established by clinical assessment that the alcohol consumption was less than 20 gm/day for women and 30 gm/day for men. Lean normal controls were identified by a body mass index between 18-25 kg/m2, absence of symptoms or signs of disease, normal liver enzymes and hepatic sonogram.
The research team, headed by Arun Sanyal, M.B.B.S., M.D., used mass spectrometry (a technique that determines the basic composition of a sample) to analyze blood lipids and metabolites of the NAFL and NASH subjects comparing them with the control group. Data revealed that the development of NAFL is accompanied by increased lipogenesis, ∆ 9 desaturase and LOX activity. "Our study provides the most comprehensive picture of lipid metabolism in NAFLD to date," said Dr. Sanyal.
Results indicate that when the condition of the liver progresses to NASH the lipogenic activity levels off or declines modestly while the LOX activity increases. Simultaneously, there is impaired peroxisomal PUFA metabolism and increase in levels of products of non-enzymatic oxidation of arachidonic acid. "Further study of the role specific metabolic pathways play in the establishment and progression of NASH are needed," concluded Dr. Sanyal. "Our findings serve as a basis for future research of NAFLD."
Article: "The Plasma Lipidomic Signature of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis," Puneet Puri1, Michelle M. Wiest, Onpan Cheung, Faridoddin Mirshahi, Carol Sargeant, Hae-Ki Min, Melissa J. Contos, Richard K.Sterling, Michael Fuchs, Huiping Zhou, Steven M. Watkins, and Arun J. Sanyal. Hepatology; Published Online: November 24, 2009 (DOI: 10.1002/hep.23229); Print Issue Date: Dec 2009. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122542493/abstract


text:
This Model-Specific Perfect Fit™ system has been specifically engineered to convert a factory heat-only 1964 Chevy El Camino to full climate control. Like all Perfect Fit™ kits, each component was either specifically designed, or carefully chosen to fit your 1964 Chevy El Camino. This kit is complete and contains what you'll need to get modern day, high performance A/C, heat, and dehumidified defrost into your classic. You can also customize your kit from a wide variety of optional louvers, and we have lots of engine compartment upgrades available.
All installation kits include detailed, step-by-step instructions, no special tools are required, and every system is backed by the best tech-support in the industry.
Your Perfect Fit™ kit comes complete with:
Perfect Fit™
This model specific
Perfect Fit™ system allows you to retrofit an original, standard, heat-only, 1964 Chevy El Camino with full air-conditioning. Our system is engineered specifically to use the original 1964 Chevy El Camino heater controls and dash louvers while providing you with powerful air conditioning, heat on the floor, and dehumidified defrost. The air conditioning and defrost connect to the original heater-defrost diffusers.
The 1964 Chevy El Camino
Perfect Fit™ air conditioning system is designed specifically to bolt into your 1964 Chevy El Camino with minimum modification to your vehicle. Each kit comes with detailed, easy-to-follow installation instructions and mounting template.
Classic Auto Air's
Perfect Fit™ model specific systems are not your typical, one-size-fits-all, low-quality, aftermarket air conditioning system. Every component was chosen for its superior design and quality rather than a low cost. Our RETROFIT designs give OE quality combined with better than original performance and reliability.
Perfect Fit™ 1964 Chevy El Camino air conditioning system is engineered to actually fit a 1964 Chevy El Camino. It comes equipped with carefully sized, large, separate A/C and Heat coils just like factory (OE) systems, not combined A/C/Heat coils often found on aftermarket systems. The separate coils improve the cooling and heating capacity of the total system.
DirectPass Airflow Technology: Classic Auto Air evaporators are AutoCad designed to maximize airflow using the exclusive DirectPass technology. This give you a greater volume of unobstructed airflow. You also benefit from larger door openings.
utilizes custom made state of
the art parallel flow "micro tube"
condensers. These designs are
used today on modern vehicles
to reduce head pressures and
to transfer heat more efficiently.
With dozens of custom sizes and shapes available we
tailor fit each one to your specific vehicle, making it a "Perfect Fit."
The OEM look: Classic
Auto Air is the innovator in
supplying pre-bent condenser
lines. These high-quality
aluminum lines that give an
OEM appearance and speed
up installation.
All the small things…:
Classic Auto Air kits
always ship with a few
more parts than you might
actually need.. like extra
screws, zip-ties, o-rings,
and extra duct hose.
History: When you buy a Classic Auto Air system you are getting 37 years of real world, high-tech, cooling technology. You can't beat experience!
Only logged in customers who have purchased this product may leave a review. Log in now
There are no contributions yet.
Ph: (877) 342-5526
Fax: (817) 442-4855
Download our catalog


text:
Only at Camp Inquiry can you turn to a room of 7-11 year olds, ask, "who knows what scientific replication is?" And hear three kids say in unison, "redooooo!"
This last week was my first visit to the summer camp in western New York state, which emphasizes science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. The JREF is a proud co-sponsor of the camp, and I had come to join James Randi in teaching the young scientists about skepticism, and to commune with some of the brightest young minds in the country.
Approaching the camp, I was flooded with the energy of the place. Kids bounced in their seats, scarfing down breakfast so they could get to their first activity. Karen Strachan, the Camp Director, called them to order so that the younger children could enjoy their first lesson with me: the story of the Cottingley Fairies. Using the JREF's educational module on the subject (get your own free here!), I led them through this fascinating tale of childhood trickery.
The story of the Cottingley Fairies is a wonderful true story of two young girls who tricked their parents (and several prominent figures of the day) into believing that there were fairies living in their garden, using a 1917 version of hoax photography. The campers and I discussed what this story can teach us about asking for evidence, and not trusting everything we see. I was charmed and impressed by these intelligent kids, who immediately picked apart the flaws in how the adults in the story evaluated the evidence. "They shouldn't have believed the girls unless they saw the fairies themselves!" said one young boy.
Next, it was time to make our own hoax photos. Using modern photography programs like Photoshop could produce some pretty convincing "ghost" or "fairy" photos, but we wanted to make it a little more challenging, so we started with the same materials the girls in the Cottingley Fairies case used: drawings on paper. The campers drew their favorite mythical creatures; fairies were popular, as were ghosts, unicorns and mermaids. Then they cut them out and we decided together how to best take a photo of the cutout to make it look real. Some of the results were quite impressive.
Hoax Photographs by Camp Inquiry campers
An "angel" darts across the sky at Camp Inquiry.
One camper executed this creative "Bigfoot" track.
This cheerful "ghost" was created by one of the seven year old campers.
The spirit of Paul Bunyan even made a cameo.
Unicorns were spotted by several campers.
Statistics and ESP
Next up was a lesson with the older campers, ages 12-17. Using the JREF's educational module on ESP, we tested two of the campers for telepathic powers. Using zener cards, I had the campers sit back to back and "transmit" a randomly selected card from one to the other. The "recipient" correctly guessed the card six times out of his twenty-five tries, well within the bounds of chance. We discussed why a simple scientific test like this, with a large sample set, is a great way to test someone who claims to have a psychic ability, and why these tests, adequately administered, virtually always turn up negative results.
As would be the case many times during my visit, the students astonished me with their quick understanding and wonderful questions. We discussed inherent flaws in the test I performed (for example, a lack of tester blinding) and ways we could improve the test if we were to perform it in a more clinical setting.
When we were done with our lesson, I asked for questions, and the hands shot up: "How many people apply for the Million Dollar Challenge?" "What do you do when the claim isn't testable?" And the ever popular "When is Mr. Randi coming here?"
Randi's Arrival
On Friday morning, the campers were excitedly shuffling around, anticipating the arrival of their favorite skeptical magician. When he arrived, they surged forward with hugs and questions. "Do you remember me from last year?" a few shouted. He chuckled and the group moved down to a blazing fire pit for official question time.
The children had many questions about Randi's life in magic and skepticism, from his famous escape act over Niagara Falls to the Million Dollar Challenge the JREF offers to anyone who can prove they have a paranormal ability. And of course, the ever popular, "What's your favorite color?" (Inside information for all Swift readers: Randi's favorite color remains a mystery.)
The next day, Randi milled with the campers to discuss everything from science and skepticism to their career plans as young scientists, artists, and more. And as the day progressed, more and more aspiring magicians appeared to ask Randi for tips on their tricks, which he was more than happy to provide.
After more than a full day of Randi inspiring the young campers, the parents came to celebrate a wonderful week by dining with us and hearing a keynote talk from none other than The Amazing Randi himself. Randi shared his many experiences in skepticism and magic through hilarious and didactic anecdotes from his amazing life.
Randi tells the crowd of campers and parents about his history with Penn & Teller, his favorite grandparent's effect on his own skepticism, and more.
At the close of an inspiring talk, the parents and campers thanked Randi for his years of devotion to educating children and adults alike, including the JREF's continued co-sponsorship of Camp Inquiry.
Randi teaches card tricks to a young camper and aspiring magician.
The week was drawing to a close, and the campers were packing into their cabins, whispering about their plans to get up early and watch the sun rise. I wished I could join them, but it was time for Randi and me to head back to the JREF and work on promoting skepticism to the public. As Randi and I left the camp, I was already excited for next year: excited to meet more young inquiring minds, explore together, and learn more than I could ever teach.
Carrie Poppy is the Director of Communications for the James Randi Educational Foundation.


text:
"Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it."
Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Bakhi (Rumi) (1207-1273)
Born in Persia, present day Iran, Rumi, as he is called in the West, is more often referred to in the Islamic world as Mawlana, or the Master. Beginning his adult life as a teacher and jurist, as his father had been, Rumi traveled to Damascus where he met and began studying under the dervish Shams-e Tabrizi. Turning his life toward philosophical pursuits, he became the poet, musician and mystic that he is remembered as today. He believed that love is the earthly manifestation of the Divine and that music, poetry and dance can be the means to draw closer to it. Although his spiritual explorations are based in the Sufi Moslem mystical tradition, they have been adopted into many other languages and religious teachings for their universal appeal to those seeking inner peace and harmonious living. From his book of collected poems Masnawi:
Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing
and rightdoing there is a field.
I'll meet you there.
When the soul lies down in that grass
the world is too full to talk about.


text:
Virginia Highlands Community CollegeHome Menu
Information About
Refunds, Credits, Reinstatement as a Result of Military Service
Pursuant to 23-9.6:2 of the Code of Virginia, and corresponding SCHEV Guidelines, VHCC provides for the tuition relief, refund, and reinstatement of students whose service in the uniformed services has required their sudden withdrawal or prolonged absence from their enrollment. Service in the uniformed services is defined as service (whether voluntary or involuntary) on active duty in the Armed Forces, including such service by a member of the National Guard or Reserve, for a period of more than 30 days under call or order to active duty of more than 30 days.
Students need to submit documentation of the official military orders to the Admissions Office before the end of the semester of withdrawal or prolonged absence.
- Tuition and Required Fees
Should a student be ordered to active duty (for reservists) or be mobilized (active military) as described in the Code of Virginia, Section 23-9.6:2, and he/she requests to be withdrawn from VHCC after the census date, the student may elect either to be deleted from the registration file and be awarded a full refund or to be administratively withdrawn with no refund and assigned a grade of "W".
VHCC offers the option for such refunds to be retained and to be applicable to tuition and fees charged in the semester or term in which the student returns to study.
- Textbooks
VHCC will process refunds for textbooks according to the contractual arrangement with Nebraska Books, VHCC Bookstore vendor.
- Academic Credits and Grades
Students who are subject to conditions described in Code of Virginia, Section 23-9.6:2 have the opportunity to receive an incomplete grade ("I") until released from active duty (for reservists) or mobilization (for active military personnel). All course requirements shall be completed within one year from the date of release from active duty or mobilization.
Students may be given the option of taking their examinations prior to regularly scheduled times as an exception to VCCS policy 5.7.1 in accordance with the SCHEV Guidelines on Tuition Relief, Refund, and Reinstatement
Students who are called to active duty or are mobilized shall be assured a reasonable opportunity to be reinstated in the same programs of study without having to re-apply for admission if they return to VHCC after a cumulative absence of not more than five years so long as the student provides notice of intent to return to the institution not later than three years after the completion of military service.


text:
Today I've decided to make some cupcakes, seems like ages since I last baked any. I had some ripe bananas in the fruit bowl and I remembered this recipe whilst browsing on Nicole's Baking Bites Blog (one of my favourite blogs). These cupcakes are really scrumptious; the banana and peanut butter flavours compliment each other wonderfully and the sponge has a light fluffy texture. I finished off the cupcake with a peanut butter frosting to play up the peanut butter even more (my boys adore peanut butter, so they won't complain).Peanut Butter Banana Cupcakes Recipe
Monday, 17 March 2008
Peanut Butter Banana Cupcakes with Peanut Butter Frosting
11 comments:
- Bimmer said...
Wow! Looks good! I love peanut butter too! Reminds me of the crunchy peanut butter I had on my bread this morning...yummy!
Thanks for sharing the recipe, will try it someday!
- 17 March 2008 at 15:13
- Maria♥ said...
Hi Bimmer
Thanks for the lovely comment. I have to say these cupcakes are a peanut butter lovers idea of bliss.
- 17 March 2008 at 18:48
- pistachio said...
Oh my you have been busy since I last checked in :)
Those cupcakes look marvellous and what a great idea to make peanut butter frosting. I bet your boys were so happy to demolish these!
pi xxx
- 17 March 2008 at 19:12
- Ruth Strong said...
What a beautiful cat! Our dog loves to climb onto our bed and look out the window too.
Your cupcakes look delicious and sound really tasty! Great work
- 18 March 2008 at 16:55
- Maria♥ said...
Hi Ruth
Thanks! Madison loves getting into our bed too but he loves nothing more than snuggling in and sleeping with us. His one very pampered kitty ;o)
- 18 March 2008 at 17:13
Hi Maria,
This is definitely Madison at his best! Can I have him, pleeeze??
Your cupcakes are definitely show stopping material...I know I'd never be able to resist, and peanut butter to boot...yummmm!!
- 18 March 2008 at 18:24
- Maria♥ said...
Hi Patty :o)
You can only have Madison on one condition! You come over and visit me soon and then you can have him the entire time of your stay with us. Btw your kids would love these cupcakes ;o)
- 18 March 2008 at 18:57
- Pixie said...
You're wicked Maria, tempting me with these cupcakes! That's it I have a date with peanut butter next week.
- 19 March 2008 at 09:36
- Maria♥ said...
Pixie my hubby calls me a little temptress, I guess his right, hehehe. I think a date with peanut butter sounds great!
- 19 March 2008 at 12:52
- Rosie said...
Awe look at Madison what a great pic of him - give him a cuddle from me :D
Wow Maria your cupcakes look gorgeous and hubby is right about the little temptress heehee... ;)
Rosie x
- 19 March 2008 at 17:13
- Maria♥ said...
Rosie I will be sure to give Sir Madison his cuddle, he loves cuddles ;o)
Hey that's my new nick name, temptress, hehehe. I know I've tempted you along the way with cookbooks on amazon!!
- 19 March 2008 at 18:23


text:
e-flux announcements are press releases for current exhibitions of art from all over the world. Selective content presents programs at leading art institutions: museums, biennials, and art centers, as well as notable artist-run spaces and experimental venues. The announcement archive documents some of the most significant exhibitions that have taken place since 1999.
Jump to a year below or use the search above


text: Meet Boogie. Boogie is a certified Canvas Creature bred specifically to deter boogie monsters and anything creepy/crawly that may be lurking in the dark of your home. Canvas Creatures come from a land with poor dental care and therefore tend to have the crookedest of teeth. Though they may look goofy on the exterior, they are quite brave and have zero fear on all matters of the dark. If anything, they are just a tad too confidant and have no shortage of ego. As with most Canvas Creatures, he prefers the company of others. It is therefore recommended to collect more than one Canvas Creature per household. This is a ONE-OF-A-KIND, ORIGINAL piece created on 6x6 inch stretched canvas with acrylic paint and bling mixed-media. No two Canvas Creatures are created alike. This is NOT a digital art piece printed on canvas. I personally hand paint and bling each individual creature. Because of this, colors may vary slightly between pieces. If you are interested in creating your own Canvas Creature, please message me. NOTE: The copyright remains with the artist, and the image must not be reproduced, copied, or altered in any way without expressed permission of the original artist Thank you for supporting the arts!


text:
You didn't need us to tell you who won over the weekend in Melbourne. But we're wondering who wore their Aussie Open trophy better: Novak Djokovic or Kim Clijsters?
(ap photos)
novak won it better, but kim wore it better.
Novak all the way. Clijsters is like the Fiona of Shrek. http://members.iinet.net.au/~pearse.s/thumper/img/kimclijsters-2089_640x480.jpg


text:
The 2018 Gold Coast Congress was held in Queensland, Australia, in February. The venue, organisation, directing and online resources for players were excellent. I had teammates from Norway; they never imagined an event could be so well-run.
Looking at the pre-event information, I saw that there were guest speakers scheduled to talk on various bridge-related matters. That struck me as an opportunity; I could give a talk about my new book, "Under the Table (The Case Against The Blue Team)", that looks at the Italian Blue Team and the related actions of various administrative bodies over many years.
Permission to give my talk, entitled "The Blue Team Rule", was sought from Australian Bridge Federation President, Bruce Neill.
Permission denied.
Well, that created another opportunity - a Bridge Winners article!
So, my talk, slightly edited and somewhat expanded, given the new format, follows.
The Italian Blue Team had a most remarkable record: World bridge team champions from 1957-1959 and 1961-1969. They then retired and, upon their return, won again from 1972-1975. All of those wins were against USA/North America, bar 1969, when they won over Taiwan.
I am able to find no team and only one individual who can approach such a feat: Heather McKay.
From that Blue Team era came the truly world-class champions Giorgio Belladonna and Benito Garozzo and, perhaps a little less talented, Pietro Forquet*.
The line-ups:
Avarelli - Belladonna (Roman Club)
Forquet - Siniscalco (Neapolitan Club)
Forquet - Chiaradia (Neapolitan Club)
D'Alelio - Chiaradia (Italian Natural, switching to Neapolitan Club in 1959)
Garozzo joined the team in 1961, replacing Siniscalco**, who withdrew from the Italian team less than two weeks before the Bermuda Bowl, citing civil engineering duties on Italy's east coast. I have questions about Siniscalo's departure and the curious fact that he never played serious bridge again (but kibitzes on BBO); Italian contacts of whom I made enquiries clammed-up as soon as they found out what I wanted to know.
Chiaradia, a weak dummy-player, was booted off the team part-way through the 1963 final after failing in 4♥XX with eleven easy winners. He celebrated this event by attacking vugraph spectators.
Avarelli - Belladonna (Roman Club)
Forquet - Garozzo (Blue Team Club)
D'Alelio - Pabis-Ticci (Little Roman, aka Arno)
The lineup above returned in 1972, all then playing Precision.
* Example:
1966 Bermuda Bowl Official Handbook:
[Forquet] had a blind spot, overlooking a cast-iron line of play...
An Italian 4♠ contract failed when Forquet made one of his rare mistakes...
A big swing to Italy seemed certain... but [Forquet] over-elaborated in the play...
A review of the 1976 Bermuda Bowl and Olympiad (held consecutively) will show that Forquet was not at all in good form.
** New York Times, 15 April 1961:
The player selected to replace Sr Siniscalco, a Sr Garozzo of Naples, is not known to American players, so it is difficult to estimate by how much the Italian team has been weakened.
It is a fact that suspicions regarding the fidelity of the Blue Team have been around since the late 1950s. From the preface of my book:
The Italian Blue Team has been the subject of many accusations of cheating. A popular opinion is that these accusations are primarily the product of outclassed Americans and have only been made about "fringe" Blue Team players such as Facchini and Zucchelli in 1975.
From the current Wikipedia entry on the Blue Team:
"The string of Blue Team victories was also followed by some cheating allegations—mainly against "lesser" team members and none against Belladonna–Avarelli, Garozzo–Forquet, or Garozzo–Belladonna."
Not so. Every member of the 1958 USA Bermuda Bowl team* signed a declaration that all the Blue Team players cheated. The 1963 Gerber Letter asserted that every member of the Blue Team was cheating. As for the 1976 Burgay Tape:
New York Times, 30 June, 1977
"The players directly implicated by the Burgay tape, in addition to Bianchi, are Pietro Forquet and Giorgio Belladonna, charter members of the Blue Team, which has dominated world championship play since 1957…"
Is there anything to these suspicions? That is what my book attempts to answer.
* Becker-Crawford, Roth-Stone,Rapée-Silodor
Consider the following two deals:
1968 Olympiad, Qualifying Round 21, board 20. Italy v France
1966 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 93
Pretty mundane hands, yes? Nothing unusual at all - plain takeout doubles at work. Indeed, plain takeout doubles over pre-empts is what Avarelli and Belladonna espoused in their Roman Club books (1959, 1969).
Here is another hand to examine:
1972 Olympiad, Qualifying Round 3, Board 20
Goodness, what a contrast! What sort of bridgeplayer won't respond to a takeout double, with a good seven-card suit and a void?
Except...Walter Avarelli was West and Giorgio Belladonna was East.
So how is it that Avarelli responded with a five-card suit and a balanced hand (1966, above) and passed with a 2-7-4-0 (1972)? What was the motivation that drove a 12-time world-champion to choose a call that no other expert, before or since, would ever contemplate?
There was a time when that question puzzled me. Not any more. Now I think that Avarelli's pass is quite ordinary and barely worthy of comment. The reason why I think that is simple; I know something that perhaps you don't. It is this:
The Blue Team Rule:
When selecting a bid or lead, the choice is made by direct reference to....
How does this sentence end? I will disclose that later.
First, a little history.
I was very keen on bridge in the early 1970s, and read all of my father's excellent bridge library. One book to which I paid particular attention was the Official Handbook of the 1972 Olympiad , where we see that the final was between the Blue Team and the Dallas Aces. That final followed the pattern of almost all world bridge championships played in my lifetime up to that point: Italy gave the US a caning. At the time, I regarded the US players as inferior and too closed-minded to see that they were outclassed.
I do not hold that view any more.
Now, let's return to Avarelli's pass of Belladonna's takeout double of 3♦ with:
I saw this deal mentioned in an online posting by Bobby Wolff. To say that I was shocked is an understatement, the more so given that 4♥ was going down. It's a simple task to create a plain 4-4-0-5 hand for Belladonna (say, ♠ A x x x ♥ K x x x ♦-- ♣ A x x x x) where 6♥ is excellent and 3♦X makes. But that's not what happened - to make an incredible pass was the only way to get a plus-score!
I knew from my reading many years ago that the hand was not in the 1972 book. This struck me as very strange; why was such a weird action not noteworthy? Well, it had to be in the Daily Bulletins, then! No way could Avarelli's pass not be a big talking-point!
The match, Italy v Germany, is written up in the Daily Bulletins, but board 20 is not. Maybe the other hands were more interesting.
Some research showed that it is mentioned in two contemporaneous accounts; newspaper columns by B J Becker and Steve Becker. Decades later, it gets a mention in Wolff's posting and Roy Hughes' "Canada's Bridge Warriors." For all intents and purposes, the deal has been kept quiet.
To digress for a moment: I believe that anyone who puts effort into researching Blue Team-related matters is going to find that cover-ups, information-suppression and the falsification of events are commonplace. I have found many instances of this; they are detailed in the book.
The 7th Edition of the ACBL Encyclopedia of Bridge writes about the 1976 Burgay Tape affair under "Cheating Allegations":
Burgay claimed the tape contained a telephone conversation between him and Benito Bianchi in which Bianchi had openly discussed illegal signaling methods. According to the tape, Bianchi explained how he and Pietro Forquet had used cigarettes to convey signals during the Bermuda Bowl in 1973 and 1974. The case came to the attention of the WBF, but nothing ever came of it because it was never proved that the tapes were authentic.
This is a lie.
The tape was verified three times:
- Long-time WBF President, Jamie Ortiz-Patiño:
Earlier in my career I had been of some help to the CIA, who had the best resources in the world for this kind of thing. Confident that they would be happy to return the favor, I sent them the tape. Back came the message: 'The tape is genuine'.
- The Italian Bridge Federation's own expert, a Sr Bacicchi, reported to the Federation that the tape was authentic
- Burgay himself tabled a report from another expert; the tape had not been tampered with
I wrote to an editor of the Encyclopedia seeking clarification and wanting to know the (unnamed) sourceof the "...never proved that the tapes were authentic" statement.
No reply.
As well, the Encyclopedia's line that "The case came to the attention of the WBF" is a serious understatement.
Chicago Tribune, 27 October, 1977:
The World Bridge Federation decided Wednesday to suspend the Italian Bridge Federation on grounds that it failed to investigate thoroughly charges that its players used smoke signals to cheat in world competition.
Another post by Bobby Wolff recounts that, after the Dallas Aces won the 1973 Bermuda Bowl qualifying rounds, a London bookmaker posted odds for the final.
Italy was 21 to 1 on.
It doesn't take much knowledge of betting odds to know that this market, in a legitimate two-runner final, is impossible. Either Wolff was mistaken or we have an "issue" of considerable gravity on our hands. I pondered the matter for a while and decided to investigate.
The first port of call was an email to Wolff in mid-2013. Wolff provided more detail, some extraordinary hands and commentary, and advised me to keep investigating, should I find the topic interesting.
Following up, I took the liberty of emailing a few Big Name bridgeplayers; I found confirmation of Wolff's 21/1 (named as 20/1 by one source; the little I know about bookmakers inclines me to think that 20/1 is more likely).
One person with whom I had a long-running email exchange was Mike Lawrence. Lawrence is in email as he is in book-writing - calm, reasonable and erudite. We chatted about various matters, mostly Blue Team, now and then. One day he mused that it would be a wonderful thing if someone sat down with every World Championship book where the BT made the final, and that particular someone made a detailed examination of every single deal. But, wrote Mike, that was a huge job, and who had time for such a project?
I was, then, residing in a small village in Thailand, totally destitute after having had millions of dollars stolen* from me. Who had time for such a project?
So I wrote to my old china plate, Paul Lavings, who has a large second-hand library of bridge books. http://www.bridgegear.com/
It took some doing, but I ended up with the WC books I needed.
And so to work.
* Off-topic alert:
This was a relative of mine, by marriage:
I am currently working on a new book:
The Gemayal Betrayal: How a Lebanese Dynasty Stole a Fortune From My Friends, My Family and Me
With a large pile of books in front of me, I had to decide where and how to start. Well, the Blue Team's frequent use of off-shape "Italianate" takeout doubles was well-known, and they have been adopted by precisely zero top-class pairs in the last 60 years. Maybe that was a good place to start. And indeed, we see some weird and wonderful things. Here are some early boards.
Hand 1.
1957 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 22.
Avarelli doubled 1♣ for takeout.
Hand 2.
1958 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 35.
Siniscalco doubled 1♦ for takeout
Hand 3.
1962 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 122.
Belladonna doubled 1♠ for takeout.
The hands above, and thirteen more, are listed at the start of my "Takeout Doubles" chapter. No expert has ever chosen to double with any of the hands, while a Blue Team player doubled with all of them. The Blue Team averaged more than +3 imps/board over those 16 hands.
Would you like to play this style of takeout double at the one-level? Well, I know pairs who, during the Blue Team era, tried this method. They didn't try it for very long - they found it to be disastrous.
Would you be worried, after making a one-level double with the hands above, about being penalised in a silly fit? Blue Team players were not. It never happened*.
Here are two numbers that you might find interesting:
- The number of penalties of 300 or more that the Blue Team paid out following a one-level takeout double without screens in the final of a World Championship (1957-1959, 1961-1969, 1972-1974):
Five **
- The number of off-shape takeout doubles made by Blue Team player when behind screens in the final of a World Championship (1975, 1979, 1983):
* I can find only one instance where the Blue Team played a six-card fit after an off-shape double:
On board 198 of the 1957 Bermuda Bowl Final, Belladonna doubled a Weak 2♥ with:
♠ 10 ♥ K J 8 ♦ A Q 4 3 ♣ K 8 7 6 5 and Avarelli played 3♠, down three.
Italy, at that time, had an enormous lead with 25 boards to go.
** 500, 500, 300, 500 500. None of these were silly fits.
This style of takeout double produced some interesting auctions.
1964 Olympiad Final, board 39.
That was the auction at the table. No, really.
A recently re-released book attempts to enlighten us about what went on there. Long-time Blue Team NPC Perroux's book about the Blue Team ("The Blue Team in the History of Bridge", 1960, 1973) has been translated from the Italian by Maurizio Di Sacco. Here is what Perroux has to say* about the auction:
Many spectators in the Bridge-rama wondered how Avarelli could not bid on to 4 Hearts over four diamonds, but for whoever knows the Roman Club the answer is simple: Avarelli cannot have less than that in hearts to freely bid the suit at the three level, and in case Belladonna had had a couple of small cards in support, his choice would have been between passing or raising. When he bids four diamonds he shows beyond any doubt that his double hinges on a long diamond suit.
Consider these two problems, faced by Walter Avarelli, who was West both times.
1962 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 122.
Avarelli could be facing ♠ x x ♥ K Q x ♦ A x x ♣ A Q x x x , which produces an easy slam.
At the table, Avarelli passed. Of course he passed; he was acting in accordance with Perroux's guideline, above.
Did he miss a slam? No, he didn't even miss a game.
Belladonna's hand was Hand 3, on the previous page - a 3-1-5-4 12-count.
1972 Olympiad Final, board 23
As we have seen, there is no need for partner to have any more than one heart.
At the table, fearless Avarelli, West, bid 3♥, finding Belladonna with four-card support.
What happened to Perroux's assurance that "Avarelli cannot have less than [AQ to six] in hearts to freely bid the suit at the three level"?
This is very strange.
Now consider this problem, faced by Belladonna, West.
1968 Olympiad Final, board 23.
On the previous board (22) of this match, Avarelli had doubled 1♠ for takeout with a 4-1-4-4 13-count. Keeping that in mind, what do you suppose Belladonna should do on board 23?
At the table, Belladonna jumped to 4♠ and made an overtrick. This was not a 5-1 fit. Avarrelli's hand:
Given Perroux's comment, that to bid at the three-level one "cannot have less than [AQ to six]", how could Belladonna bid at the four-level with a five-card suit? What do you think is going on?
Here is another problem; same partnership; Belladonna is North.
1966 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 21
The Roman Club books are quite fussy about hand evaluation, using point-count and Losing-Trick Count. Roman Club is a hard-line canape system; with a 3-1-2-7 good opening bid, 1♠ is forced. It follows hands with a long major and secondary clubs are a problem; these are handled by opening two-of-a-major. This is defined as 12-16 HCP and 5-6 losers, five+ of the major and four+ clubs.
With a stronger single-suiter, but less than a game-force, one can open the long suit and then jump in it. That is the systemic treatment for the hand above.
But Belladonna opened with 2♥, underbidding by at least an ace and a trump.
Avarelli had garbage - a useless jack.
Was this luck?
Not in my opinion, because Avarelli and Belladonna were following the Blue Team Rule.
* Readers may assign to Perroux's comments the degree of verisimilitude they see fit. Meanwhile, it seems clear that Avarelli's pass of 4♦ caused quite some comment at the time. Other examples of vugraph audiences being startled by highly-successful Blue Team actions are covered in my book.
Avarelli and Belladonna played a method whereby the final double in this auction:
1 suit - dbl - newsuit - dbl
was for takeout (responsive). You can read about this in the World Championship system summaries. You can read about it in the Roman Club books. There is no doubt that this is what they played.
Here is this double in action:
1965 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 30
Once again we see that a Blue Team player survived doubling an opening 1M with shortage in the other major. They never had a problem after such an action*.
The rest of the auction is quite as one would expect: Belladonna doubled to show both minors and Avarelli supported.
Now consider this pair of auctions:
1966 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 45.
At the table, Avarelli, West, doubled for takeout.
Danny Kleinman, contributing editor to The Bridge World, has written an analysis of the Blue Team at the 1966 Bermuda Bowl. Of this deal, he writes:
What, pray tell, did Avarelli intend to do over partner's likely 3♦ next? Never fear, partner had six clubs and two diamonds.
Kleinman is mistaken. Belladonna was never going to bid 3♦, because he had more clubs than diamonds. He must have more clubs than diamonds, because Avarelli doubled.
1968 Olympiad Final, board 21.
At the table, Belladonna, East, doubled (the non-psyche of 1♥) for takeout. He ended up playing 3♥(!); -50 when the spade finesse lost.
Now, I suspect all readers will think that the first auction (1965/30) is quite unremarkable, once we get past the initial takeout double.
Some will think the second auction is most peculiar and the third is downright too bizarre for words. Why did Belladonna compete with such garbage? Who doubles for takeout with five cards in the unbid suits**??
I don't find the above auctions strange. I think that all the auctions were bid in accordance with the Blue Team Rule.
* I am aware of some infrequent "challenges" that the Blue Team had when the opponents psyched after a Blue Team takeout double. This topic is addressed in a chapter of my book: "Psyches and the Range Signal"
** As we will see later, the answer to that question is, in addition to Belladonna, Garozzo.
We saw, on the preceding page, that Avarelli and Belladonna didn't pay too much attention to their agreements. This tendency can be found all across their auctions. Their hands often didn't match their system and partner almost never went wrong.
Now, Avarelli and Belladonna's Roman Club has precise rules for handling 5332 hands with 12-16 points. If the five-card suit is of poor quality, the hand is treated as 12-16 flat and opened 1♣. Otherwise, one opens and rebids his long (non-club) suit or opens a three-card suit and rebids the five-card suit; rules are given for when to do what.
I have a chapter called "Supposed Partnership Methods", that examines every Avarelli - Belladonna hand from the 1957 - 1959 World Championships where they opened the bidding holding that shape and range. They didn't follow their system, they just bid whatever best suited partner's hand.
If the five-card suit is of poor quality and partner has support, it's more efficient to bid the long suit and not open 1♣. It's fine to pass 100% forcing bids. Responder raises with four-card support when partner has length and not when he has opened a three-card suit, and so on.
The chapter title, "Supposed Partnership Methods", comes from a term used by Danny Kleinman.
Here is Kleinman on Avarelli and Belladonna in the 1966 Bermuda Bowl Final:
In my book "Bridge in the Tower of Babel" I examined their [Avarelli and Belladonna's] use of [the Roman] system, writing a long chapter I called "Bid with the Romans." Their bidding deviated from their system so often that I concluded they were either terrible bidders or basing their calls on something other than their hands and their supposed partnership methods. That chapter contains some 77 bidding problems of which the pair got only 8 right, but you need not take my word for it, as you can check the deals and my analyses of them for yourself. You might also ask yourself, "Can conclusive evidence of cheating be obtained from studying hand records alone in conjunction with knowledge of partnership agreements?" You might be surprised.
I have read "Bid with the Romans". No, I was not surprised.
I was not surprised because I know what Avarelli and Belladonna were doing. They were using the Blue Team Rule.
Now let's take a look at the Forquet and Garozzo partnership at work:
1962 Olympiad Final, board 66
A simple overcall by Garozzo, a simple raise by Forqet. Boring.
Now consider this:
1964 Olympiad Final, board 56
What a pair! Obviously, East is a compulsive overbidder, while West, clearly traumatised by past horrors, will do anything to avoid having to watch his partner butcher the play of another hand.
Except... West was Forquet and East was Garozzo.
Do you find this second auction simply astounding? What on earth caused Forquet to pass 1♠ with a better hand than the one with which he raised? Why bid 2♥ and never raise the spades??
Personally, I think Forquet's actions are quite straight-forward. I don't find them remarkable atall. That's because I know the Blue Team Rule.
Consider the following two hands - same partnership, same opponents (Mike Lawrence and Bobby Goldman), same event.
1972 Olympiad Final, board 32.
Garozzo, West, doubled.
1972 Olympiad Final, board 80
What should Forquet, East, do, following Garozzo's off-shape double?
At the table, Forquet bid 4♥.
If you think that could not have been a 4-2 (or even 4-3) fit, you are on the way to understanding the Blue Team Rule.
Here is another hand; this time it is Forquet's partner who has no doubt at all about suit lengths following a takeout double:
1961 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 136
At the table, Garozzo, West, bid 4♥.
Yes, again this was not a 4-3 fit.
We saw that Avarelli and Belladonna used a responsive double, following partner's takeout double and a new-suit bid on the right. Now let's look at another systemic treatment: Neapolitan Club's responses to partner's takeout double.
Neapolitan used "Herbert Negatives", whereby the next step was a negative response. Edgar Kaplan gives this hand as a minimum 2♣ (not-negative) response after partner doubles 1♠: ♠ K x x ♥ x x x ♦ x x ♣ Q 10 x x x.
Here is the Herbert Negative in action:
1957 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 77.
It is as plain as could be that both players knew that the Herbert Negative was in use. Siniscalco bid the next step with a poor hand and a doubleton, and Forquet didn't "raise" with six diamonds,
From the chapter, "Partner Will Understand":
This auction is in accordance with the stated methods. However, there are some "issues" with using a Herbert Negative; it can make the auction awkward when the responder to the double actually has the next-step suit and some values. What if you have more than a negative but not enough to jump opposite an Italianate off-shape double? How to iron matters out? No problem, partner will understand. Consider this next deal:
1958 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 32
Here we see an illustration of much of what is wrong with off-shape doubles. First, note that, on board 35 of the same tournament, Siniscalco doubled an opening bid of 1♦ on his right with: ♠ Q 9 2 ♥ Q ♦ A J 10 7 4 3 ♣ A 9 8
Given that there is no guarantee of heart support, how should Siniscalco respond to Forquet's double of 1♦, above? Siniscalco could not jump to 2♥; that could be a silly fit, so he chose 1♥. But wait, that's a Herbert Negative, showing about 0-5, any shape! Bizarrely, Forquet clearly knew that it was a suit and values. How is that possible?
As noted on page three of this article, every member of the 1958 US team signed a declaration that the Blue Team cheated. Do you think this hand would have been one of the reasons why?
Now, the Blue Team was famous for its bidding judgement. Edgar Kaplan, on the 1971 Las Vegas Challenge Match:
But the Blue Team's advantage was in competitive bidding. With few exceptions, they were in the auction when they should be, out of it when they shouldn't be…
Kaplan was quite right. Just how it is that the Blue Team players managed to walk on water, year after year, while playing unsound methods and deviating frequently from their systems, is an interesting question to contemplate.
But don't think they never had bad boards; they did, albeit very few. And those bad boards were mostly from poor decisions from the weaker players: D'Alelio, Siniscalco, Avarelli,Chiaradia and Pabis-Ticci. They won 42 combined world championships. They were not strong players.
The worst was Eugenio Chiaradia. Somehow, he is regarded as the Blue Team's primary bidding theoretician, being behind the creation of Neapolitan Club (which morphed into Blue Club, after major reforms by Garozzo, who did understand bidding theory, unlike Chiaradia).
Chiaradia's great contribution to bidding theory was the 12-17 1NT opening, with no 4+card suit other than clubs. And what should responder do with a flat nine-count? If you use the Blue Team Rule, that isn't a problem. Nor was the absence of negative doubles; that wasn't a feature of Blue Team bidding until they were paid to shift to Precision in the early 1970s.
Chiaradia was a rich source of bridge bloopers. One example: in 1962, Lew Mathe scored 12 easy tricks in 6♦ while Chiaradia, a level lower, threw away his twelfth trick early in the play; late in the play, he found the following suit too difficult: AJx opposite Kxx
1958 Bermuda Bowl Final, boarde 120.
Siniscalco, West, went on to game and was doubled; down one on soft defense. If Forquet's opinion was worth nothing, why bother to solicit it?
By 1972, whatever skills Avarelli once had at bridge had waned. See boards 63 and 85 of the Olympiad final and give them as problems to anyone you know who has read a bridge book.
Pabis-Ticci's defence on board 47 of the 1969 Bermuda Bowl Final gets my award for "Worst Defended Slam in World Championship Finals History".
D'Alelio was only a little stronger than Chiaradia.
1957 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 56.
D'Alelio, West, committed a beginner's blunder. More than a decade earlier, Skid Simon wrote of the wisdom of passing the moment a misfit became apparent. 2♣ was the last making spot.
1957 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 115.
D'Alelio, West, doubled 1♦.
Yes, some American players of that era did equally silly things, but none of them won 13 world championships.
D'Alelio did not have a good 1966 Bermuda Bowl. There are hands where he forgot Asking Bid responses, forgot to open a Roman Two, forgot to canapé, and forgot the responses to Blackwood. His play to go three down in 6NT was described in the Official Handbook as, "an unaccustomed lapse in dummy play."
It wasn't.
In my book there is a chapter, "On the Lesser Players", that goes into more detail regarding these players. In that chapter, I provide strong evidence that Chiaradia did not understand how simple Stayman worked.
It is often the case that one must select a bid or opening lead, and the choice is not immediately clear. Expert players will study partner's bidding to date and attempt to visualise what it is he is likely to hold.
I am going to show you a new way of working out partner's hand. Rather than look at partner's bidding in an attempt to ascertain his holding, look at a player's actions in order to understand what his partner has. For this to be effective, the partnership must use
The Blue Team Rule:
When selecting a bid or lead, the choice is made by direct reference to partner's holding, in terms of lengths, shortages, range and ace-count.
If a partnership uses the Blue Team Rule, from a player's actions, it can be possible to work out what his partner has.
Let's use an earlier hand as an example.
1964 Olympiad Final, board 56
The auction is simple to analyse:
- Forquet, West, passed 1♠, therefore Garozzo had four spades and a minimum.
- Forquet bid 2♥, therefore Garozzo had no shortage; spades was a seven-card fit, while hearts could be an eight-card fit.
You may be unfamiliar with this technique, so here are some problems upon which to practice.
The question is easy: Given West's last action, what is his partner is likely to have?
You are West throughout.
1. 1975 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 82.
You are playing a 13-15 1NT
2. 1957 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 126.
3. Las Vegas Challenge Match, Blue Team vs Dallas Aces
4. Las Vegas Challenge Match, Blue Team vs Dallas Aces
5. 1966 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 82
6. 1972 Olympiad Final, board 64
7. 1968 Olympiad Final, board 68
8. 1969 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 72
9. 1958 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 160
Forquet led the ♦6. What does partner have?
10. 1964 Olympiad Semi-final, board 49.
Blue Club had no direct forcing raise, so Forquet had to go via 2♦.
How likely is it that the partnership reached 6♠ off two cashing aces?
11. 1967 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 42.
12. 1966 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 75.
13. 1963 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 9.
14. 1965 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 23
15. 1961 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 5
16 1958 Bermuda Bowl Qualifying, Italy v Argentina, board 138
Chiaradia led the ♣A. What does partner have?
You are West throughout.
Partner Belladonna has a flat hand with zero points, so it would be silly to open 1NT*. Bobby Wolff foolishly opened a 15-17 1NT in the other room, and went for a number. What on earth was he thinking? Opening 1NT when partner is broke is just asking for trouble.
The 1975 Official Handbook had this to say:
Garozzo chose an exceptionally good moment to decide not to open a 13-15 point notrump
In order for Avarelli to sell out to 2♠, Belladonna must have a most unsuitable hand.
3. Problems 3 and 4 are from the Las Vegas Challenge Match of late 1971.
Avarelli bid on to 4♦, so Belladonna must have an enormous hand. +130
Here, Avarelli passed, so Belladonna must have a horrible hand. +50. E-W will go minus if they bid on.
Avarelli would be missing a sound game and a playable slam opposite:
♠ A J 10 x x ♥ x x ♦ x x x ♣ A x x, but he passed, so Belladonna could not have such a hand.
Kaplan wrote, of Avarelli's performance in that match, "Avarelli's competitive judgment was particularly impressive."
Obviously partner has dreck. Just as with Belladonna's monstrous 2♥ underbid on page 9, D'Alelio had a useless jack. +140.
6. I like this hand very much. I am reminded of Jerome's quote, "I like work, it fascinates me. I can sit and look at it for hours."
With a passed partner, adverse vulnerability, a dead club queen, no shape, and no source of tricks, there was nothing to commend Belladonna's forcing partner to bid, other than the fact that Avarelli had enough to make 4♠ a fair contract. Equally insightful was Avarelli's pass over 5♣. Some players would make a card-showing double, but, with partner being so weak, it's better to stay out of the auction.
Partner has four good hearts. There is no point in bidding his singleton.
See above.
9. It is best to try to build partner's diamond winner while he still has the club ace.
Of course, the question is absurd. Forquet and Garozzo bid to 6♠, therefore, they cannot be off two cashing aces, or an ace and a trump trick. I show other similar hands in the book. Old-time Blue Club players who could never understand how to reconcile cueing first-and-second-round controls equally, with no Blackwood past the second round of bidding (unless a jump), can now see how it was done.
Spades is a seven-card fit. It would be silly to advance to 3♥ without an eight-card fit, so Forquet has three hearts.
Partner has to have good diamonds; in this case, ♦ K Q 7. Danny Kleinman, in a report on the match:
…this deal reinforces the impression formed earlier that Walter [Avarelli] is utilizing information illicitly received from Giorgio [Belladonna]. How else can his penalty pass of 1♦ doubled be explained?
Partner has four diamonds and a non-minimum. He will not have a 5-3-2-3. It would be ridiculous to bid 3♦ if he had such a hand.
Garozzo's double is for takeout, therefore, Forquet had the majors.
The rest of the auction makes it clear there was no misprint.
Partner has one spade and rubbish. Better to be out of the auction.
16. This hand is so amusing (at least to me), that I will allocate it its own page.
* For a similar instance, see page 6 of this article:
Reese-Schapiro,Jaïs-Trézel and the Blue Team players all had one thing in common:
When one pysched, either partner had pure junk, or partner fielded the psyche with 100% accuracy.
While my research is ongoing, I have yet to find an exception to this statement.
Chiaradia led the ♣A and gave partner a ruff. D'Alelio returned a spade; South won the queen and now had his tenth trick. On the run of the hearts, both defenders discarded their spades; an overtrick resulted.
The lead was more than strange; why not keep club control? It is entirely possible declarer has a doubleton ♣K; why set it up? Even if partner can ruff, sometimes he will be ruffing a loser, sometimes he will ruff with a trump trick.
From the book:
And, amusingly, D'Alelio found himself in a pickle at trick three. A diamond exit was sure to be safe (and will break up the double strip-squeeze that will develop after a passive trump exit) if partner can be relied upon to have led a singleton. But, having been delivered what he asked for, D'Alelio could draw no such inference, and so gave the contract away.
Opening leads get considerable coverage in the book; the Blue Team was famous for its lethal accuracy in this area. Here is what Bridge World Editor, Sonny Moyse had to say:
Take the matter of blind opening leads, a department that happens to impress this observer. I have not made a thorough analysis, but for hand-after-hand it was almost uncanny, the way an Italian [during the 1957 Bermuda Bowl] picked out the killing (or if that wasn't possible, the least costly) lead.
Book chapters examine other deals where a Blue Team player gave a ruff by leading an unsupported ace; the most famous of those is Pabis-Ticci's match-winning lead on board 77 of the 1968 Olympiad.
The opening lead to a slam is particularly important. Garozzo had advice for us in this area. Here is his 1976 Bols Tip:
Games may be quietly defended, but slams must be attacked.
I have a chapter that examines every Blue Team lead to a bid-to-make slam, where there was a reasonable choice of leads. The Blue Team players followed an even sounder rule:
Lead from a king when partner has the ace or the queen. Do not lead from a king when partner has nothing in that suit.
Now, I want to raise a point that I think is important. Consider this quote from Danny Kleinman:
If you suspect cheating... you look for patterns. For example… one partner always seems to know when the other has extra values for his bidding, and when he has stretched.
Kleinman is right. When considering suspect deals, it is right to focus on, "To what extent is a highly-abnormal action a fine fit for partner's holding"? Statements about par not being reached, or a better score being available by some other means, are red-herrings.
Here is an example of what I mean.
1957 Bermuda Bowl Final, board 70.
It is entirely possible that 4♠ would fail (Forquet, South in the other room, made 4♠ after a heart lead). I assert that the fate of 4♠ is irrelevant. What counts is, Chiaradia made two very strange calls - 2♥ and 4NT. Do these calls suit partner's hand, or not?
1NT was natural; there was no reason D'Alelio could not hold:
♠ K 10 x x ♥ x x ♦ K Q x x ♣ J x x .
But he didn't, and playing at the five-level seems a little high in order to find out.
Now, I can think of some objections that an informed reader might put forward. Here they are.
1. Cherry-picking.
An alert reader might say, "Listen, the Blue Team played 1,752 hands in world championship finals from 1957 to 1972. You've shown us a handful that are suspect. Now show us all the hands where the Blue Team went for a number or ended in a stupid contract, after taking similar actions."
My book has been pruned from some 500 pages down to about 400. There are hundreds of hands, many with actions beyond bizarre, yet almost invariably successful.
It is when bad bidding produces good results that cheating must be suspected. When values turn up in unexpected quantities or unexpected places - that is, where not suggested by the bidding - we may hypothesize that these values may have been communicated via illicit signals.
As for the showing of counter-hands: Well, I would if I could, but, for all intents and purposes, such hands don't exist, at least when screens were not in use. As Kaplan said (noted earlier):
With few exceptions, they were in the auction when they should be, out of it when they shouldn't be…
There are exceptions, but they are very few.
Anders Wirgren*:
A year ago I got a preview of a coming book...
All serious authors and writers know that there is no shortcut to the truth. You have to go to the sources. So after reading Under The Table that is what I did. I went through all my old world championship books, downloaded PDF versions of the books I missed and read it all over – with new eyes...
I am convinced that the Blue Team players signalled their strength... because their timing was always perfect: they overbid when partner had extra values, but underbid when he had nothing. Always.
It is impossible to have such accuracy, unless you know something you shouldn't.
Indeed, I regard the amazing lack of volatility arising from risky Blue Team actions to be quite a give-away. In my book, I mention the similarity between the Blue Team and Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. In both cases, experts blew the whistle, saying that such results were impossible over the long-term; the authorities ignored the matter.
Moyse wrote:
...for hand-after-hand it was almost uncanny, the way an Italian [during the 1957 Bermuda Bowl] picked out the killing (or if that wasn't possible, the least costly) lead.
That applies to all world championships; the opening leads are nothing short of miraculous. While often not anything like the majority expert choice, they almost invariably are just what suits partner best. How often did a Blue Team player lose a trick on opening lead to a slam, without screens being in use? Never.
But there is no need to take my word for any of that. You can check for yourself. This site:
has the bidding and play records for world championship finals (without screens) for 1957, 1959, 1962, 1967, 1973 and 1974.
This site has the LIN files, should they be more to your liking:
* The quotes are from an article in that was published in the Swedish Bridge Federation's membership magazine, "Bridge" (No. 1, 2018). I have an English translation and can post it if there seems to be interest.
2. What about all the magnificent hands in Forquet's "Bridge with the Blue Team"? Are these not evidence of bridge genius?
Here's a funny fact: Siniscalco, D'Alelio and Chiaradia won 22 world championships. How many of these hands appear in Forquet's book?
One - the first hand of the book, where Chiaradia takes a clearly-inferior line to make 6♠. A section of my book discusses why we should have concerns about the fidelity* of this deal.
After all those world championships, Forquet was unable to come up with one legitimate print-worthy deal that any of those three played. That's no surprise to me: They weren't very good players. In my opinion, the Blue Team only ever had two truly world-class players: Belladonna and Garozzo.
In the introduction to "Bridge with the Blue Team", Forquet writes:
All the hands used arose in actual competition and are faithfully and accurately reported.
In my book, a chapter, "Forquet's Deal Falsification and Plagiarism", shows that Forquet had no business saying any such thing.
3. If all this is true, why hasn't someone else written a similar work, analyzing Blue Team actions?
Good question. My book discusses this in a chapter, "Why Now?" An extract:
Part of the answer may be in the work-load; poring over many hundreds of deals is quite a chore and typing up hand diagrams is tedious**. But I suspect the real answer is that to demonstrate that world bridge has been corrupt for several*** decades would have been plus de trop; too many people would simply refuse to accept such a proposition and potential authors feared being pooh-poohed and sneered at, à la John Swanson and Bobby Wolff.
What changed the public mindset to being much more willing to entertain the idea of wide-spread high-level cheating was Boye Brogeland's 2015 release of video-based evidence showing the cheating of top European pairs. As I wrote in chapter 1:
It can no longer be considered a laughable delusion to suppose that world-class pairs have engaged in formal collusion to cheat at the bridge table. It is fact.
* Another suspect Chiaradia deal is from the 1960 Olympiad, Italy vs USA Vanderbilt 2, where B J Becker failed in 6♠, after finessing and losing to a bare king with:
♠ A Q J 9 8 2 opposite ♠ 7 5.
Chiaradia dropped the bare king; his "reasoning", when asked why, is gibberish.
When I first saw this deal, I thought that Chiaradia just didn't know any better; the suit was too hard for him to work out.
Alan Truscott, in a New York Times article, supplied a different reason: an Angolista.
** I see that prisoners in US jails are organising a strike, protesting about being paid cents per day for their labour. I am considering organising a similar movement for bridge book authors.
*** Parts of the book consider the case of the Austrian team of the late 1930s.
4. If all this is true, why didn't the authorities do something?
The topic of the inaction of the authorities (WBF, ACBL, EBL and FIB/FIGB) in response to many grave problems, is discussed at length in my book. It is clear that an unofficial WBF policy of cover-ups (in Ortiz-Patiño's words, "minimize the scandal") was firm policy from 1958 onwards.
1958: All members of the losing US Bermuda Bowl team signed a declaration stating that the Bliue Team players were cheats. The ACBL did nothing. The ACBL did not ask the newly-formed WBF to investigate. A cover-up.
1963: A letter from Italian experts, detailing the Blue Team's cheating methods, was read out to all NPCs and journalists at the 1963 Bermuda Bowl in St Vincent, Italy. The WBF did nothing and no journalist ever reported on the matter. A cover-up.
1975: Bruce Keidan, a US journalist, was the monitor for a match of round one of the qualifying, 1975 Bowl - Italy vs France. He recorded six hands where Facchini and Zucchelli, members of the Italian team, used foot signals under the screens.
The World Bridge Federation resolved that Facchini and Zucchelli be severely reprimanded for improper conduct...
...in the absence of any concrete proof against the Italians I felt I could not vote that they were cheating...
Keidan observed six boards that involved foot-tapping. Two are known; boards 3 and 7. The details of board 7 leaked out via an Oswald Jacoby column; this deal shows evidence of the use of an illicit signal. None of the six boards appear in the Official Handbook or the Bulletins.
At no time did the WBF answer these questions:
What are the other four board numbers?
What are the details of the other five boards?
Has this information been suppressed on the grounds that cheating was apparent?
If Facchini and Zucchelli were not cheating, why were they barred from future WBF events?
If they were cheating, why was this finding not made public and why were they allowed to resume their partnership in Italy*?
1976: Leandro Burgay handed a tape to FIB (Italian Bridge Federation) that detailed cheating methods used by Forquet, Belladonna, Bianchi (Forquet's Bermuda Bowl partner, 1973-1974) and more Blue Team players.
I understood the tape well and was in little doubt of its authenticity, the background noises and such like being thoroughly convincing... In places, my jaw literally dropped. The media would have loved it: smoke signals, pauses, commonplace words with coded meanings... Burgay told me his partner had gone into hiding
The WBF demanded an enquiry and a report. 850 days later, FIB had done nothing other than produce baseless exonerations. There is evidence that FIB doctored the tape in order to insert false exonerating statements by Bianchi. The matter vanished via a truly astounding statement from the WBF President regarding "necessary administrative changes" and ignoring the question of cheating entirely.
We all felt thoroughly convinced that the WBF and FIB could go forward together in the spirit of reconciliation. The WBF was now able to write to the new FIB President withdrawing the threat of suspension
At no time did FIB or the WBF ever answer these questions:
Did the tape detail cheating methods of the Blue Team, or did it not?
Did FIB ever produce a report?
If so, where is it and what does it say?
What did the tape say?
Who has a copy of the tape or a transcript thereof?
What happened to the copy that was handed to the WBF Executive Council?
More information about these events, especially about the Burgay Tape, is found in my book.
5. Do any top-class authorities share these views?
There are some endorsements from leading players in my book. Here are two extracts:
Bart Bramley:
A page-turner on the controversial subject of Blue Team cheating. Regardless of your previous opinion (if any), you will find Wilsmore's arguments compelling and his conclusions provocative.This is the most thorough deal-by-deal examination ever done.
Anders Wirgren:
When I took up bridge in the late 1960's, the Italian Blue Team impressed me immensely. I never understood how they could find so many extraordinary bids and plays which nobody else could match, so I supposed they knew something an amateur like myself did not. After reading Avon's well-researched book, I understand why I was so perplexed back then. Read it yourself and you will find out why the Italians were so successful!
* Facchini-Zucchelli won the 1984 Italian Open Teams with D'Alelio & Pabis Ticci!
How does this violate our Community Guidelines?
Benefits include:
Plus... it's free!


text:
Virgin apologises for Tamworth mechanic issue that left crew locked out of plane
VIRGIN has apologised for a mechanic issue that impacted on of its Tamworth planes, which was described as being similar to locking the keys in the car.
On Friday, Sydney-bound Virgin Australia flight VA1148 was grounded all day at Tamworth airport.
A Virgin spokesperson said there was issue with the door to the flight deck.
"[The flight] was delayed this morning due to an engineering issue, which required an engineer to fly interstate to address the problem," they said.
"All guests have been booked on an alternate service which is due to depart this afternoon.
"We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused."
A member of the Tamworth airport ground staff said it was like the Virgin crew had essentially "locked the keys in the plane".
"There are a couple of ways they can lock the plane," he told The Leader.
"They may have done a manual lock instead of automatically.
"Whatever they've done, they're locked out of the plane. They haven't had access to it all day.
"It's the only plane that does the Virgin route between Tamworth and Sydney, so they'll probably have to fly the engineers up on a Qantas flight."


text:
BENEFITING: Boys & Girls Club of Stoneham Inc.
ORGANIZER: Boys & Girls Club of Stoneham Inc.
EVENT: Dodging for Dollars II
EVENT DATE: Apr 01, 2017
Boys & Girls Club of Stoneham Inc. wrote -
Playing at 11:00 am
Champions will be crowned, egos will be bruised, but most importantly ... children throughout the North Shore will be helped.
Please help us fundraise for the Boys & Girls Clubs of Stoneham & Wakefield.
- $25 pays for an annual membership.
- $60 pays for a backpack & school supplies.
- $150 pays for art, carpentry, & film equipment.
- $260 pays engineering & robotics kits.
- $500 pays for college scholarships.
- $750 pays for an entire day of programming.
Everyday hundreds of kids come to our Clubs. When they do they are dodging negative influences, dodging risky behaviors, and dodging other nefarious activities.
Data shows Club kids get better grades, are far less likely to experiment with risky behaviors and are more involved in their communities than their peers.
This success has led to an increase in Club members. As compared to previous years, our membership has grown significantly, nearly doubling within three years. Meanwhile, we maintain a very affordable membership of $25 for the entire year, but the programs we offer costs $750 per child.


text:
|System: PS3, Xbox 360*, PC
|Dev: Behaviour Interactive
|Pub: Disney
|Release: June 19, 2012
|Players: 1-2 (Local)
|Screen Resolution: 480p-1080p
|Fantasy Violence
Voice actor Kelly Macdonald returns as the voice of Merida, so that's good. She can sometimes be a little difficult to understand and a few more lines would've been welcome so we're not constantly hearing the same dialogue over and over again. The soundtrack is good, much like the film, but the sound effects, specifically the creature noises, sound a little bland.
The story takes roughly eight hours to complete, and that's actually not too bad for today's standards. This makes it a mildly amusing game that can keep you busy over a weekend. The storybook-style cutscenes are one of the game's strong points; they look great and do a good job of keeping the plot moving at a decent pace.
Once you've beaten the game, there's little reason to return unless you want all the collectibles that are hidden throughout the environments. Because every location is connected by a single hub world—an area called the "Ring of Stones," that lets you access a new environment once you've beaten the previous one—you can revisit completed areas to scour them for their hidden items. As far as licensed games go, this one is largely bug-free. The aforementioned camera issues are a nuisance and there's a chance you'll have to contend with some sporadic frame-rate drops, but overall it's above average for a game like this.
Brave: The Video Game successfully manages to maintain—and in some aspects surpass—the incredibly low bar set by pretty much every other licensed game. This game is only occasionally bad, but its good moments are just as rare. It's largely a middle-of-the-road affair—a fact that's reflected in its lower $50 price tag—and an experience you will forget about as quickly as a dream. This really isn't a bad game, and as far as licensed titles go, there's a slew of them that are far worse than this. However, just because it's "okay" doesn't immediately make it something you should consider for your kid, at least not when there are so many more superior child-friendly games out there. If you want more Brave, I suggest watching the film, but if you're just looking for something related to the film to play with a child, you could do worse.
Adam Dodd
Contributing Writer
Date: June 29, 2012
Game Features:


text: Assuming they didn't weld or otherwise permanently attach it, removal is easy. At the rear of the hider is a split section sticking down, there should be a small washer in the split with a single pin passing through both "ears" and the washer. Drive the pin out and remove the washer. There is a slot cut in the bbl that the washer fit down into, once it is gone the hider will unscrew. Been a while, but IIRC the threads are right hand.


text:
Bats Continue to Sputter
The higher the opponent's ERA the more the Phillies puzzling offense seems to flutter or sputter or whatever. That's the way it seems to be going lately.
Three batters into the first inning, the Phillies had a run. That was it until the sixth as Bazardo (9.55 ERA) quieted the Phillies bats and another sellout crowd armed with rally towels. Bazardo was in the Phillies spring training camp as a non-roster invitee but released in March. Six months later he wins his first major league game in two years. That's the way it seems to be going lately.
Despite scoring the second fewest runs in the NL during the season, the Astros produced eight runs to win their fifth straight against the Phillies and run their Citizens Bank Park record to 11-5, best among the enemy.
Last time the Phillies lead was at four games? August 15, after the Braves beat the Phils in Atlanta. On September 9, the Braves were third, nine out. They've gone 15-2 since then (both losses to the Phillies) to pull within four games of the NL East lead and two in the wildcard race.
Happiness now rests with Happ, who has been the Phillies most consistent starter. He'll face a rookie pitcher (Wilton Lopez) making his first major league start tonight. His ERA? 10.38. Oh, brother.
Time Change
FOX has chosen Saturday's game with the Marlins for a national telecast, starting at 4:10 p.m.
Chris Wheeler will sell and autograph his new book, View From The Booth, on the main concourse behind Section 111. The time has also been moved to 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Phillies Insider is on twitter as barons63.
3 Comments
yo guys you know you have to win some games, so get off your ***** and lets get it done.
manual blew this nlcs game2 by taking out Pedro who was cruising. if ain't broke, don't fix it
manual blew this nlcs game2 by taking out Pedro who was cruising. if ain't broke, don't fix it