[lamford]

mikeh, on 2015-September-02, 17:15, said:

Ok, I see only a high spot on my right. Probably meaningless, but if it means anything at all, it suggests either J7 or stiff. Hmmm, if it was J7, LHO's lead of the club Ace is a bit odd. If it was stiff 7, LHO's lead makes nothing but sense. Ok, I am going to run the 10.

The 7 is not a significant card. If it were the T, and you had AQ98, then indeed it would be significant and it would be mighty close, although a falsecard from JTx would be more likely. Good players are able to play insignificant spot cards randomly. Six other declarers who had the AC lead went off, and two made it. I have already accepted that running the T has a bridge logic, just not a good one. When we add in dummy looking at a defender's hand, dummy making abnormal "fidgets" and the length of time to take the decision, potentially waiting for a signal, we might decide this hand is significant. And if declarer had concluded that the leader had a trump trick, he would never cash the ace first.

I do agree that other hands might be more significant. The great work by Woolsey in particular. But I don't think this hand is insignificant. I do agree it would be nowhere near enough on its own.

[MrAce]

cherdano, on 2015-September-02, 09:57, said:

Timo, no reason to overstate your case. Carl Hudecek's post was completely ridiculous, and Rainer's post was very reasonable in comparison. I don't think Meckstroth would have LOL'ed Rainer's posts.

I don't think world class players would run the ♦T without additional help from table feel (and if they did, they would think before cashing ♦A). But its not a ridiculous play to make.

He would have laughed and wrote exactly the same thing he did in BW, when he read the line that says "I am not convinced" by Rainer.

That does not mean Rainer having been not convinced only by this hand makes him fool. What Meck laughed there and what I also find laughable is the approach that finds a possible explanation to each hand, followed by "I am not convinced" comment, and totally ignore the common sense. When you are talking about a player who covers with Q when pd led the suit and dummy has JT9x when it is right to do so, along with so many other hands and choose to comment on 2 NT or 3 NT decision, which I agree with Rainer btw, but ignore so many hands like "Support Pass at 5 level!" Ignore auctions made at 5 level with almost balanced hands when right while conveniently ignore hands with 8 card solid suit and not even bidding it once when right...

Then yea, not only Meck but most will find it laughable and say "You can fool some people, all the time" Not for one's opinions on a singled out hand but due to their overall logic. Some people looks at the sky and can see the stars but still can not see the light (Eagles )

[mikeh]

MrAce, on 2015-September-02, 21:31, said:

He would have laughed and wrote exactly the same thing he did in BW, when he read the line that says "I am not convinced" by Rainer.

That does not mean Rainer having been not convinced only by this hand makes him fool. What Meck laughed there and what I also find laughable is the approach that finds a possible explanation to each hand, followed by "I am not convinced" comment, and totally ignore the common sense. When you are talking about a player who covers with Q when pd led the suit and dummy has JT9x when it is right to do so, along with so many other hands and choose to comment on 2 NT or 3 NT decision, which I agree with Rainer btw, but ignore so many hands like "Support Pass at 5 level!" Ignore auctions made at 5 level with almost balanced hands when right while conveniently ignore hands with 8 card solid suit and not even bidding it once when right...

Then yea, not only Meck but most will find it laughable and say "You can fool some people, all the time" Not for one's opinions on a singled out hand but due to their overall logic. Some people looks at the sky and can see the stars but still can not see the light (Easgles )

The problem may be as simple as you suggest, for a few people, but most of those who criticize 'examples' of cheating are not burying their heads in the sand, Timo. Most of us, based on what I have read, believe FS cheat. What some of object to is the trend we see of looking at every single good result they get and inventing arguments to call them cheats on this hand as well. Nobody cheats on every hand....there wouldn't be a need, or their methods don't apply. I have little doubt that they help with lead issues. I remain to be convinced about coughing or speed of bidding, but I am certainly willing to be convinced on that. But we get people raising all kinds of behaviours. I got news for you. Almost nobody remains completely motionless and silent for hours on end. With screens, people tend to vary tempo in bidding more than without screens, and so on. They may actually make plays, some of which may seem to you and me as unusual, without actually cheating on that hand. I am morally sure that happens. But we have some posters here and on BW who can't accept that. Since, to them, every winning decision is the result of cheating, they pore over the 'evidence' to come up with the proof. It is really difficult to watch, since it reflects an ugly side of human nature....a kind of lynch mob attitude, with the bayers for blood utterly convinced of their righteousness.

I think FS cheat. I am strongly of the view that they cheat on leads. Less strongly on the other allegations, but waiting for more analysis, which may be persuasive. But that slam hand is relevant to nothing absent evidence of similar behaviours. For instance, I think I was one of the first to post about the board position on the hand where f led a heart from Kxx. I noted the suspicious board placement, but noted a possible explanation and said it would be interesting to look at similar situations. This was done, and seems to have produced great, tho imperfect, evidence that has convinced me. But that does not mean that they signal bad trump breaks based on one hand for which there is a bridge explanation.

[zasanya]

I have been intrigued by the comments of several usually rational posters here. I am referring to the term perfect evidence or sufficient evidence.
What is perfect evidence ? Even if someone confesses to a crime, one could say he might have confessed because of torture or because he wanted to protect someone. When does the evidence become perfect or sufficient? After 100 examples ? 1000 thousand examples? Can we put a number on this?

[mikeh]

zasanya, on 2015-September-02, 23:31, said:

I have been intrigued by the comments of several usually rational posters here. I am referring to the term perfect evidence or sufficient evidence.
What is perfect evidence ? Even if someone confesses to a crime, one could say he might have confessed because of torture or because he wanted to protect someone. When does the evidence become perfect or sufficient? After 100 examples ? 1000 thousand examples? Can we put a number on this?

Nobody is looking for perfect evidence. It doesn't exist in real life. We are talking about basic logic. Try reading the posts again...try to understand the points being made.

There are proper, logical ways to demonstrate levels of correspondence between suspicious activity and unusual results. All such methods depend on analyzing patterns. It is impossible to prove cheating from single examples, other than the most blatant. It is wrong to claim to be able to prove cheating by approaching even a large number of situations with the pre-judged opinion that cheating is going on. It is possible, and appears to be being done, to view hands, formulate a hypothesis, and test the hypothesis on hands not in the original sample. It seems to me that many here, well- intended, have no understanding of what are to those whose jobs entail establishing proofs basic concepts. That isn't surprising. It is dismaying when so many otherwise intelligent people can't seem to grasp these points even when spelled out. I am not referring to disagreeing with me. I have only a semi-educated voice in this, working as I do in areas where I have to examine experts in this type of thinking, such as epidemiologists. In BW, in Woolsey's thread, iirc, a couple of very eminent statisticians pointed out the flaws in how most have approached the issue. It seems that the blood-lust aroused by these threads has overwhelmed logic. Too bad. As I have said before, it isn't FS I am worried about. There is some, sufficient IMO, evidence to convict. It is a fear that the sort of argument that seems to impress so many here can be used against almost anybody that someone decides to accuse of cheating.

People tend to act stupidly when they become members of an impassioned group. If this suggestion by me annoys you, too bad....maybe some time in the future, if you ever have the misfortune of being wrongfully accused of something, a bell will go off in the back of your mind and you will finally, too late, understand what I am saying here.

I've been there...wrongfully accused of cheating, with a lot of people, including some 'friends' buying into the accusations made by a couple of players who couldn't accept that maybe my partner and I were better players than they were. So I am a little sensitive to seeing bullshit 'reasoning' by statistically illiterates so overtaken by bias that they don't have a clue as to their errors of logic.

[captyogi]

I Fully Agree with what Mikeh is saying. Zasanya is not totally wrong, but very difficult to fullfill his requirements to give ruling

= = = = =

Zasanya says :
I have been intrigued by the comments of several usually rational posters here. I am referring to the term perfect evidence or sufficient evidence.
What is perfect evidence ? Even if someone confesses to a crime, one could say he might have confessed because of torture or because he wanted to protect someone. When does the evidence become perfect or sufficient? After 100 examples ? 1000 thousand examples? Can we put a number on this?

= = = = = = =

Mikeh Comments
Nobody is looking for perfect evidence. It doesn't exist in real life. We are talking about basic logic. Try reading the posts again...try to understand the points being made.

There are proper, logical ways to demonstrate levels of correspondence between suspicious activity and unusual results. All such methods depend on analyzing patterns. It is impossible to prove cheating from single examples, other than the most blatant. It is wrong to claim to be able to prove cheating by approaching even a large number of situations with the pre-judged opinion that cheating is going on. It is possible, and appears to be being done, to view hands, formulate a hypothesis, and test the hypothesis on hands not in the original sample. It seems to me that many here, well- intended, have no understanding of what are to those whose jobs entail establishing proofs basic concepts. That isn't surprising. It is dismaying when so many otherwise intelligent people can't seem to grasp these points even when spelled out. I am not referring to disagreeing with me. I have only a semi-educated voice in this, working as I do in areas where I have to examine experts in this type of thinking, such as epidemiologists. In BW, in Woolsey's thread, iirc, a couple of very eminent statisticians pointed out the flaws in how most have approached the issue. It seems that the blood-lust aroused by these threads has overwhelmed logic. Too bad. As I have said before, it isn't FS I am worried about. There is some, sufficient IMO, evidence to convict. It is a fear that the sort of argument that seems to impress so many here can be used against almost anybody that someone decides to accuse of cheating.

People tend to act stupidly when they become members of an impassioned group. If this suggestion by me annoys you, too bad....maybe some time in the future, if you ever have the misfortune of being wrongfully accused of something, a bell will go off in the back of your mind and you will finally, too late, understand what I am saying here.

I've been there...wrongfully accused of cheating, with a lot of people, including some 'friends' buying into the accusations made by a couple of players who couldn't accept that maybe my partner and I were better players than they were. So I am a little sensitive to seeing bullshit 'reasoning' by statistically illiterates so overtaken by bias that they don't have a clue as to their errors of logic.

= = = = =

My Comments # 11 on 28th Aug, 2015,

I put forward some hypothetical , but possible Cheating Methods

Cheating Method 1 :

Expert Level Player gets involved in Dealing, Machine Dealt Boards, copies .PBN or .LIN files on pen drive , takes them home and at peace goes through all the deals, makes note of Typical Deals and makes Good Use of this information on the table, every round of 8 to 10 deals, IMP Scoring, 2 deals, where Slam or Game is not possible to bid , but it is Cold or other way round , Slam or Game has to be bid , but it is bound to fail for sure, are Good Enough for your team to give 20-0 Win.

Cheating Method 2 :

With somebody in Dealing Team or Vu Graf Team, who is willing to compromise integrity, Cheating Expert makes a deal with him ( of course at cost )and gets Dealt Boards .PBN or .LIN files on pen drive, 20-0 victory is assured.

Crooks, Cheats, Terrorist, Guerillas their brain is working overtime all the times, trying device new new innovative methods, world is facing brunt everyday, How Bridge can be exception, we are part of this world. We better prepare to counter such destructive methods and stay alive or perish.

= = = = =

Now it will be impossible to prove if anybody is following above methods. But Simple Scrutiny of Hands Played by that Player and that too on various occasions and in field where there are many Top Level Players have played the same hands, Highly Unusual Bidding and Play by that particular Cheat, should be more than Beyond any Doubts , Good Enough to Prove he has Cheated.

[Antrax]

The Israeli team withdrew from the Bermuda Bowl:

[Trinidad]

Funny detail: With Israel withdrawing, the likely scenario will be that teh WBF asks the EBL to send an other team. The EBL will then select the number 7 from the list. This team is Sweden... with Cullin and Bertheu who as I understand it) cracked the FS code... (together with Magnus Magnusson from Iceland).

Their hard code cracking work may have earned them a place in the Bermuda Bowl.

Rik

[captyogi]

Antrax, on 2015-September-05, 04:29, said:

The Israeli team withdrew from the Bermuda Bowl:

How Sad for 2 Israeli Pairs, they toiled and got berth in BB and now they must wait for 2 years and undergo qualifying rounds and qualify.

[nige1]

Hrothgar says "The WBF then video recorded the Doctors in another event," Please can somebody provide a link to the Cavendish video-recordings (if any). If the videos have been destroyed that weakens the case against the doctors. It would be even worse If such videos exist but the WBF won't allow the doctors access to them.

[mgoetze]

nige1, on 2015-September-05, 09:09, said:

Hrothgar says "The WBF then video recorded the Doctors in another event," Please can somebody provide a link to the Cavendish video-recordings (if any).

There is no video, there was just an observer who confirmed the findings.

[nige1]

captyogi, on 2015-September-05, 08:51, said:

How Sad for 2 Israeli Pairs, they toiled and got berth in BB and now they must wait for 2 years and undergo qualifying rounds and qualify.

IMO, the IBF should have waited for an official guilty verdict.

[MrAce]

To be honest, I really do not care who replaces them. What I am more curious is "What will JEC" do? Will he turn in the title or just wait the ACBL decision just in case they may let him hold on to it.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2015-September-05, 09:18, said:

IMO, the IBF should have waited for an official guilty verdict.

I don't agree. F-S have already said hey won't play together until this is resolved. The Bermuda Bowl starts at the end of this month. The sooner the EBF vacates the qualification spot, the easier it is to replace the Israeli team in the BB.

And no matter what would happen in the next few weeks, it would be very hard (if not impossible) for the Israeli team to perform well under these circumstances.

Rik

[helium]

mikeh, on 2015-September-02, 07:53, said:

so the other two declarers who made the slam are cheaters as well? Or is it only conclusive evidence when we already 'know' they cheat?

I think FS cheat, but let's hope their fate get decided by people who do not go into the matter so convinced of their guilt that they see evidence in everything that they have ever done.

i think mr Ace got the quote from from Jeff wrong.

I think Jeff word was "its obviously true that you CANT fool all the people all the time" not can, and i don't think he laughed of the conclusion that some players drew after the A ♣ Lead.

[MrAce]

helium, on 2015-September-05, 11:22, said:

i think mr Ace got the quote from from Jeff wrong.

I think Jeff word was "its obviously true that you CANT fool all the people all the time" not can, and i don't think he laughed of the conclusion that some players drew after the A ♣ Lead.

No, I quoted exactly what Jeff Meckstroth said.

[lamford]

Some interesting developments on Bridge Winners in the last hour:

Boye Brogeland:
“This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But it is perhaps the end of the beginning” - Winston Churchill

We will never get another chance like this to clean up the game. It's for everybody to fight the good fight and do the right thing. For the future of our wonderful game.

PS. Stay tuned - bridge history is in the making.

Lars Andersson: Is another team in the Bermuda Bowl going down? The adverts lead me to believe that..

Ellis Feigenbaum: If you are doing what I think you are Boye, F-S is small fry in comparison, WOW

https://www.youtube....h?v=7miRCLeFSJo

[cherdano]

mikeh, on 2015-September-02, 22:15, said:

Nobody cheats on every hand....there wouldn't be a need, or their methods don't apply.

I do think F-S cheat on every hand where they possibly can. Here is what we know so far about their cheating methods:

• Signal opening lead preference: 100% confirmed
  
• Signal weakness (in context) with noised - either water bottle or coughing: in my mind 99% confirmed (search through Greg Lawler's comments: he confirmed this hypothesis mentioned by Ish at the hand of a different set, and according to him it matched perfectly)
  
• Indicate singleton on defense by switching hands with which they play cards: alleged by BB
  
• Lying to appeals committees: obvious
  
• Signal club length via noised with writing pen: alleged by BB
  
• Signal heart honour: alleged by BB
  
• Peek into opponents hands as dummy then help declarer with body language: alleged
  
• Indicate support for partner when having a weak hand: alleged
  
• Peeking through the screen gap to look at an opponent's hand: obvious in one of the videos

In addition, their famous actions in Dublin are in my view most easily explained by having had access to the hand records (or maybe peeking at other tables).

All these allegations have come from world class players, and as far as I can tell they all have a good basis from observations (and BB has probably done more to confirm them). Maybe they are wrong in the majority of their observations - I find that hard to believe! So far, everytime someone tried to verify one of such claims it has been confirmed. How many of these are confirmed beyond reasonable doubts? Certainly the lead-directing; if Greg Lawler's analysis is accurate then also the weakness-showing coughing/drinking.

In my mind the easiest explanation of the available facts (including their past convictions) is that they are truly pathological cheats that use every possible means and opportunity to cheat more.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2015-September-05, 09:18, said:

IMO, the IBF should have waited for an official guilty verdict.

It's not enough to avoid impropriety, they also need to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

[Antrax]

https://m.facebook.com/Fisher.Schwartz

for people with no facebook account: this is a page titled "F S: the true story". Currently it implies the allegations are sour grapes.