[Vampyr]

 gordontd, on 2015-October-13, 09:50, said:

I don't think WBF & EBL appeals were heard by players in the events. I thought they had committees appointed for each event. Can anyone confirm this?

If this is the case, what was the rationale for eliminating appeals?

[mgoetze]

 mikeh, on 2015-October-13, 09:38, said:

Have you read what has been posted on BW about BZ? Brogeland has been silent since shortly after the credentials of BZ were withdrawn

Well now at least we know who hasn't been reading BW carefully.

[mgoetze]

 Vampyr, on 2015-October-13, 10:45, said:

If this is the case, what was the rationale for eliminating appeals?

I'm sure I remember people complaining about the cost of flying the committee members to the event and putting them up at the hotel all at the WBF's expense.

[gordontd]

 Vampyr, on 2015-October-13, 10:45, said:

If this is the case, what was the rationale for eliminating appeals?

I don't know what the rationale was, but one of the effects must surely to be save money.

[mikeh]

 cherdano, on 2015-October-13, 10:02, said:

Lol. You should write less and read more.

And yes, BZ ARE cheaters.

what is your problem? Look at the thread about it not looking good for Poland, and see post #2.

Having done so, please explain what I should have read more?

As for reading more, I have read virtually every post on BW on BZ. I see quite a lot, recently, about the notion that B may be showing 5 card suits at the time the opening lead is made. However, I also see that earlier the notion was that they signalled by spacing the Pass or bid cards during the auction. Then I saw that they signalled exact shape by (improperly) touching dummy's cards, with a spread of fingers showing exact shape. Then I saw that they signalled attitude to partner's opening lead by moving their right hand.

Strangely enough, each hypothesis seems to be replaced by another. Usually after commentary by those who have reviewed the 'evidence' to the effect that not everyone sees the behaviours that have been identified by the proponents of the hypothesis in question. That isn't surprising, since it is well known that our perception, particularly of matters that are not well-depicted, is influenced by our expectation.

Now we have another hypothesis. It may prove to be correct, in which case it would seem to be good evidence of cheating. Forgive me if I don't jump on the current bandwagon, given that the previous bandwagons seem to have lost their wheels along the way.

As for BZ 'ARE' cheaters, that sort of confidence despite the lack of strong evidence says a heck of a lot more about who you are than about whether BZ are cheaters.

Just in case your animus against me (which I continue to fail to understand) blinds you to the obvious: I do not for a moment hold to the position that BZ are not cheaters. I hold to what I would expect of any decent, honest observer: a view that there is reason to enquire and an obligation to do so fairly, without prejudgment. I suppose we could legitimately disagree on whether the evidence is so far sufficient to pronounce guilt, but given the state of the evidence discussed here and on BW, I don't actually think that there is any rational basis for doing more than saying that there appear to be grounds for suspicion, and that further work is necessary.

I once asked a witness, in a defamation case, whether she understood that there is a difference between believing something to be true (which she did) and knowing it to be true (which she didn't). Her answer was: 'I do now'. Too little, too late. She and her cohorts who produced a newsletter implying that a local politician was corrupt, by publishing assertions of fact that were demonstrably untrue, ended up paying a very large amount of money. We see this approach to analysis throughout BW: belief mistaken for knowledge. I am disappointed that you seem to be making the same error....unless, of course, you are privy to information not yet here or on BW.

[hrothgar]

I am going to be playing in the District 25 NAP semi finals this weekend (hopefully the finals as well)

I am so tempted to randomly vary the the orientation with which I lead cards just to screw with people.

[mikeh]

 gordontd, on 2015-October-13, 10:49, said:

I don't know what the rationale was, but one of the effects must surely to be save money.

I don't know what the exact rationale was either, but there have been a number of high profile players argue that appeal committees ought not to exist. I am pretty sure that Michael Rosenberg, for one, strongly believes, or believed (I don't think I have seen anything from him on this in a while) that appeal committees ought to be done away with at NABC's.

The rationale, in part, was (iirc) that appeal committees are prone to error, and that in many instances they aren't made up of the peers of the players in question, especially in late rounds of major events.

It is not always easy to find suitable, willing candidates. Friendships and animosities exist at all levels of the game, so impartiality can be an issue. Often the appeal has to be held after the evening session, and finding players still around and interested in sitting late can be a problem. So one ends up with committees that may lack the bridge knowledge that is the very reason for having them there.

In addition, often times the committee decision is resented by the losing players, sometimes justifiably because of a terrible ruling, and sometimes unjustly. This can lead to all kinds of resentments.

So I gather the notion advanced by Rosenberg and others has been that the Committee process isn't good enough to reliably do what it is intended to do, and the benefits don't justify the costs, tangible or otherwise.

[mgoetze]

 mikeh, on 2015-October-13, 10:58, said:

However, I also see that earlier the notion was that they signalled by spacing the Pass or bid cards during the auction. Then I saw that they signalled exact shape by (improperly) touching dummy's cards, with a spread of fingers showing exact shape. Then I saw that they signalled attitude to partner's opening lead by moving their right hand.

Strangely enough, each hypothesis seems to be replaced by another. Usually after commentary by those who have reviewed the 'evidence' to the effect that not everyone sees the behaviours that have been identified by the proponents of the hypothesis in question.

I'm sorry, but how can you not see that they are clearly systematically spacing their bids in an unnatural way? You must be blind. The reason more things are coming up is not that the bid spacing bid is wrong - it's that they are cheating in more ways and people are curious about it. (Also because some people make the unreasonable demand of a full decoding of the system, and a system to show weak/strong in context can by nature never be proven 100% because someone is always going to come out and say, "well *I* think this hand is weak, not strong"). Fluffy's video showing Zmudzinski spacing the bid one way, realizing his "mistake" and then quickly correcting it before the tray was passed to the other side sealed the deal for me on this one.

And signalling their shape by touching dummy's cards... yes, explain that one to me. How on earth do you make such an unnatural gesture which just happens to coincide with the shape of your hand by accident?

[mikeh]

 billw55, on 2015-October-13, 10:13, said:

But isn't it the WBF who effectively made the matter of BZ public, by rescinding their invitation?

I don't know why the WBF made that decision, but if one assumes that they had good reason, they could hardly keep it private! We'd all be wondering why BZ weren't playing.

It may be that the 'lynch mob' was a predictable, if unfortunate, consequence of the WBF announcement, but I don't understand how that could have been avoided by the WBF, other than by ignoring the evidence that we understand was presented to them by Brogeland. I doubt that many of us would have been happy to learn, after the BB started, that BZ were playing despite the allegations....that the WBF had continued its prior and much criticized attitude of ignoring complaints.

[lamford]

 gordontd, on 2015-October-13, 10:49, said:

I don't know what the rationale was [for eliminating appeals], but one of the effects must surely be to save money.

Why could they not have an AC made up of volunteers drawn from players? Given the amount of time Brogeland and Woolsey have spent without pay on the cheating allegations, I assume there is no problem getting three good men and true. What was needed in the Poland v England case was three players of world championship class. A TD, of lesser strength, consulting, did not seem to get the job done.

[mikeh]

 mgoetze, on 2015-October-13, 11:08, said:

And signalling their shape by touching dummy's cards... yes, explain that one to me. How on earth do you make such an unnatural gesture which just happens to coincide with the shape of your hand by accident?

On at least one of the videos about touching the cards, it seems apparent that the player in question was (improperly) simply moving dummy's cards away from his side of the table....dummy had laid down the cards to his left so they weren't in any way centred. On at least another of the videos that I looked at, I didn't see the same number of fingers being displayed as the proponent of the theory said that he saw. I am not claiming that my perception is infallible and his wasn't, but on that issue I note that several posters, including Woolsey, expressed similar concerns.

As for spacing of the bid cards, yes I see that the spacing is inconsistent. What I haven't seen, and I admit to not having looked at all or even 'most' of the videos, is that the hypothesis has been well tested, in the sense that Woolsey and others have said it needs to be. IOW, what I have read, and maybe I am missing something (in which case I apologize and will admit error), we have been pointed to examples of behaviour that appears correlated to holdings, but until we look for disproof rather than proof, the evidence will always be lacking.

In science, it is common to test a hypothesis not by looking to prove it to be true but by attempting to prove that it is untrue. This makes sense, since a hypothesis is proposed as an explanation of what is currently known, and unless some logical error has been committed, the hypothesis will always appear to be supported by what is currently known. Thus the best way to test it is to think of a previously unexamined aspect of reality that ought to be a certain way IF the hypothesis is valid. Test that....if the result supports the hypothesis, that doesn't prove the hypothesis to be valid, but it strengthens that view....while if the result contradicts the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is likely invalid. I don't see that sort of analysis applied to any of the behaviours of BZ, at least to a significant degree of rigour, but I may have missed the evidence in that regard. If so, then, as said above, I apologize.

[mikeh]

 lamford, on 2015-October-13, 11:14, said:

Why could they not have an AC made up of volunteers drawn from players? Given the amount of time Brogeland and Woolsey have spent without pay on the cheating allegations, I assume there is no problem getting three good men and true.

I have never heard of an appeal committee member being paid, and I have served on quite a few The cost, if there is one, is for the directing staff...I don't know if they get overtime pay for staying at the site for the appeal. I would hope not...I would hope that this was assumed to be part of their regular duties, but I don't know. Admittedly my experience as a committee member is limited to Regionals and the Canadian Team event.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2015-October-13, 11:14, said:

Why could they not have an AC made up of volunteers drawn from players? Given the amount of time Brogeland and Woolsey have spent without pay on the cheating allegations, I assume there is no problem getting three good men and true. What was needed in the Poland v England case was three players of world championship class. A TD, of lesser strength, consulting, did not seem to get the job done.

I think the other reason for the move away from ACs is that it's considered more fair. Finding unbiased players for an AC can be difficult, because the community of championship players is pretty close knit. And being a good player doesn't necessarily mean you're an expert on the Laws, while high-level TDs are expected to be. So the theory is that a panel of directors should be more qualified to handle appeals.

[mikeh]

 mgoetze, on 2015-October-13, 10:46, said:

Well now at least we know who hasn't been reading BW carefully.

Ok, you got me. He posted yesterday, after I had gone to bed, and I didn't update my reading in detail this morning. You win a point

[nullve]

 cherdano, on 2015-October-12, 14:02, said:

If you can't control your hand movements enough not to signal numbers on every second hand you defend after the screen is opened, then maybe bridge isn't for you.

cherdano, I'll ask you again: Can you (cherdano, not Balicki) control your hand movements enough not to signal numbers on every second hand you defend after the screen is opened? If 'Yes', how do you know?

[mgoetze]

 mikeh, on 2015-October-13, 11:45, said:

Ok, you got me. He posted yesterday, after I had gone to bed, and I didn't update my reading in detail this morning. You win a point

Boye Brogeland commented on BridgeWinners on September 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th and October 1st, 2nd, 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th as well, so no, I was not referring to his comment on October 13th.

[mikeh]

 mgoetze, on 2015-October-13, 12:41, said:

Boye Brogeland commented on BridgeWinners on September 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, 30th and October 1st, 2nd, 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th as well, so no, I was not referring to his comment on October 13th.

Yes, he did....but since Oct 5 he has said nothing, that I could see, about the evidence re BZ. He did refer, in some earlier emails, to the bidding gap theory, but that theory seems to have lost its original status as 'the' reason that posters on BW have hit upon as proof of cheating. What concerns me, and underlies my spate of posts here recently, is that there have been several theories advanced, seemingly in sequence, in support of which the evidence seems untested, in the sense that Woolsey and others have said needs to be done.

Maybe the bidding gap theory is enough. I don't know. Maybe it has been properly tested, in that it has been tested against hands other than the ones used to arrive at the hypothesis. I don't know. I haven't seen any post that lays out that it has been, but I have never claimed to have read every post.

Brogeland says only that he thought the evidence was sufficient to present to the WBF, but short of the conclusive level of evidence on FN and FS, which suggests to me that the necessary analysis hadn't been done.....I stress that this is no criticism at all.....just getting to the point of having any level of credible evidence was astounding and work for which we should be grateful even if it turns out that BZ were not cheating.

I see that Brogeland writes as if convinced by the evidence, and I don't doubt his sincerity. However, for reasons that by now I would hope are obvious, the way to prove or disprove a hypothesis is not dependent on the sincerity of the belief held by the proponent of the hypothesis, and that is what I think quite properly concerns the WBF.

A lot of people seem to think that insisting upon procedural safeguards means wanting to let guilty people avoid conviction. It isn't. Not at all. It is about wanting to minimize the risk of innocent people getting convicted. In almost every case in which that happens, somebody, somewhere along the line, sincerely believed in the guilt of the convicted. People have been executed, even in recent times, based on mistaken but sincerely held beliefs that were not adequately tested. One cannot aspire to justice or equity if one starts cutting corners merely because one is convinced, on an emotional level, of guilt, or even on an evidentiary level, if the evidence is incomplete. No system is perfect....as humans we are imperfect...but we can try.

[PhantomSac]

Mike all of these pairs were cheating in multiple ways, they were too greedy to do just 1. However to "catch" them it is better to just nail one down as a lock and not present the other ones which may only be true 95 % or 90 % of the time for whatever reasons. The reason of multiple hypotheses is because they are cheating in multiple ways. The evidence needs to be so rock solid to satisfy the people even though obviously saying "here are 10 ways that they cheat, one is 100 % and the others are only 90-95%" should be more damning, in the real world it's not as smart as saying "heres a way they cheat that is 100 %" since it doesn't give people anything to latch onto in order to defend that pair.

Even with this thing people are like omg 1 in 17,000 that is ridiculous how can you call that evidence lol. The bidding gap thing is real but getting enough evidence to make it 100 % is very very hard and time consuming, most likely because sometimes people mess up their code (like forgetting your system or having a brain lapse), or sometimes they don't use it (often this is because they are playing against other cheating pairs or very top pairs, for instance FS would sit EW against some pairs).

Anyways lets just wait for Boye to present his evidence, it's pretty evident that Kit and Boye are not on the same team. They obviously have very different styles but it is Boye's that has gotten everything done so far. I understand as a lawyer this must be very distasteful to you but I still think of it as civil disobedience/a protest. In fact it wouldnt shock me if the WBF was disbanded after all of this or someone else made a new league.

[Fluffy]

They might try to make a new league, but that things don't go anywhere. They just make some noise, which actually is not bad.

[cherdano]

 mikeh, on 2015-October-13, 10:58, said:

what is your problem? Look at the thread about it not looking good for Poland, and see post #2.

Having done so, please explain what I should have read more?

Now you are just being dishonest. The post I quoted made it clear that you were writing a long post about the newest allegations, verified by Kit Woolsey in a detailed methodical post, without having read that post. Instead, you were basing your long opinion on a short off-hand comment.

Meanwhile:

Quote

As for BZ 'ARE' cheaters, that sort of confidence despite the lack of strong evidence says a heck of a lot more about who you are than about whether BZ are cheaters.

It could mean that I am an idiot who is quick to believe allegations without evidence. Or maybe, I wouldn't write such a statement unless I have spent quite a bit of time thinking about the allegations, and also spending some time verifying some of them.

Given that you have proved repeatedly that you are unable to understand basic statistical principles about verifying such hypotheses, maybe it's not for you to decide which of the two is true? (But if you need some help - maybe it helps you to know that I am highly skeptical about some of the allegations against B-Z?)

Of course it is true that I have an animus against the poster 'mikeh'. But I would make the same comments about any poster whose comments on cheating are as ridiculous as yours.

But since you once proved someone wrong on cross-examination, of course you are right.