[mikeh]

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

Let me rephrase: if 3rd hand leaves the tray on the table on precisely the boards where an expert would not want to make a signal, then that is a coincidence that is much more likely to happen if they cheat, then if they not cheat. Thus, it is (probabilistic) evidence of cheating. You instead seem to want to ignore it!

sigh........I saw a reference on Slate to an article that purports, if the headline is accurate, to explain why there is so much misunderstanding on the internet.

You apparently don't understand my arguments at all. Of course null results can be consistent with cheating, and indeed careful examination of the patterns of null results can strengthen, perhaps greatly, the inferences to be drawn from positive results and I never knowingly suggested otherwise. What I protested is the twisting by Kit and Ish of null results into positive results! They don't just note that 'on these hands no signal was exchanged'.

For that to be useful, it ought to be accompanied by something like: we gave these hands to a panel of experts naïve to the source of the hands, and mixed with a larger sample of hands from other players/events, and we asked the experts, looking only at the hand held by partner of the opening leader, and knowledge of the auction, whether they had any preference for any suit. We found that on, say, 87% of the hands the plurality of experts felt that there was no clearly preferable suit. Thus we note that there is a striking correspondence between the null observation and the lack of there being any logically preferred suit.

Couple this with a similar approach on hands on which signals were observed and one can, if one is correct in one's suspicions, expect to build a powerful case that incorporates null as well as positive signals.

Instead, we get the absurdity of Woolsey and Ish not only doing the observations but, knowing what actually happened, generating the 'reasoning' of the cheats for the null signal or the ignoring of the signal. Events that contradict cheating, such as a spade lead when the signal was apparently not for a spade, or a club from Kx when the signal was for another suit, are turned into confirmation. Don't misunderstand me...the speculations may be correct...but the process is abysmal and tainted to the point that neither Kit nor Woolsey would have any credibility in a formal hearing before people who weren't already biased to view them as infallible.

[Trinidad]

captyogi, on 2015-September-09, 10:59, said:

As regards Code Breaking Method, What Do We Expect should be the Success Rate ? 75 % ? 80 % 85 % 90 ?

Once there is a hypothesis for the code, the code needs to be tested on independent data. In this case, a possible hypothesis is: "the lead desired by third hand is signaled by the board position".

So, a group of expert players should go through the boards and determine what lead 3rd hand would desire. A group of observers (preferably those who know nothing about bridge) should write down where the board is placed.

If we have only 4 positions for the board and 4 suits to lead, we would expect that the board position matches the desired lead in 25% of the cases. A significant deviation from 25% indicates a correlation between the location of the board and the desired lead.

The question is: What is a significant deviation?

That depends on the number of boards studied. If one studies 1 board only, then the result will be that either the lead and the board location match (100%), or they don't (0%). So, for 1 board, not even a 100% match is significant. But if you study more and more boards, then the fraction of matches should drop towards 25%. Of course, there is always a small probability that the matches are purely coincidental. If you have 5 boards, there is a probability that all 5 of them match by coincidence: (1/4)^5= 1:1024 or 0.1%.
Suppose that we say that 80% match is enough to convict. The probability that 4 of them match (and 1 is wrong) by coincidence is 5*(3/4)*(1/4)^4= 15:1024 or 1.5%. This means that the probability that at least 4 out of 5 match by coincidence is 16:1024 or 1:64 (1.6%).

Do we find this 1.6% probability that the board location matched the desired lead by coincidence acceptable? (Which would mean we would "convict" F-S when the board placement was purely coincidental?) That is not up to the statisticians. That is up to the judges.

As we look at more boards and more boards, these probability boundaries are approaching 25% matches more and more. If we compare 100 boards and find a 75% match that would be overwhelming evidence. (If I calculated correctly, the probability that this would happen by coincidence would be 1E-25 or 1: 1E25. 1E25 is roughly the amount of atoms in a kg of copper.)

Rik

[Vampyr]

mikeh, on 2015-September-09, 13:15, said:

Instead, we get the absurdity of Woolsey and Ish not only doing the observations but, knowing what actually happened, generating the 'reasoning' of the cheats for the null signal or the ignoring of the signal. Events that contradict cheating,

Yes, I thought that this was really weird. But the cases where the signal was ignored could possibly be evidence of cheating it it were shown that the subsequent defence made no sense without the knowledge that partner had values in the signal suit. This is not, of course, what was done.

[gwnn]

billw55, on 2015-September-09, 08:58, said:

I haven't read Kit's material, so forgive an obvious question. Was he checking for and reporting matches of the hypothesized signals to (1) the actual lead, or (2) the nonleader's hand? This seems like a big difference.

both, but he clearly stated that he only considers (2) relevant.

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2015-September-09, 10:38, said:

I think we agree on more than you may think, but we disagree about how it is that the bridge authorities will have to deal with FS.

I readily admit that I have no expertise in how the WBF or the IBF, to name two likely authorities, have to act. I do see, from BW, that the IBF processes are subordinate in some fashion to the Israeli court system, but I don't know anything much about the governing principles of that court system. I do assume that the system operates on more or less the English/US presumptions and basic evidentiary rules. That may or may not be valid but in the absence of reason to reject it, it is all I have to go on. I assume that the WBF is not subject to any particular national jurisdiction, other than perhaps that of the country in which it has its headquarters.

I am somewhat familiar with the ACBL system, at least at the District level, having been counsel on one hearing and having been part of the list of possible jurists for the District for many years, but never actually having to sit on a hearing.

I am generally familiar with the basic concepts of 'natural justice' as in play in many parts of the Commonwealth and am fairly sure that these rules are similar to some of the due process rules in the US.

All of this is by way of saying that I strongly suspect that if FS insist upon formal process by any bridge authority with the power to limit their ability to play professionally, there will be a hearing run according to procedural and evidentiary rules that will parallel and may well be essentially identical to the rules that would be in effect in a court hearing...in a trial.

Now, the standard of proof is an interesting but very different issue. Procedural and evidentiary rules govern what evidence is admitted and how evidence is tested. Balance of proof goes to how satisfied the tribunal has to feel about whether the accusations have been made out. In the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, the accuser, in a civil matter, only has to show that it is 'more likely than not' that the case is made out...the balance of probabilities approach. In criminal matters, the standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt....which, by the way, is an extremely difficult standard to explain in simple terms and is often grossly misunderstood by reporters covering criminal trials.

My main concern is that regardless of the standard of proof, there will eventually be a hearing constrained by rules that to the layperson may seem almost designed to limit the evidence that is to be considered....and in a very real way that impression is correct. The rules exist to ensure, as best as rules created and enforced by humans can do, that the issues are decided on 'real' evidence, and not rumour, gossip, and so on.

So, if our concern is to rid high level bridge of cheaters, we can do this in one of two ways.

We can lay charges and have due process (a phrase I don't like and never use in my practice, but we have a lot of Americans involved and they love that concept) and hope for the just outcome or we can engage in open or hidden character assassination, with no real opportunity for the accused to get a fair opportunity to refute the charges, and/or hope that all the sponsors in the world will decide never to hire them again. Good luck with that, if the experience of Katz, Cohen (not the famous and highly ethical Larry we all respect!) and Cokin are any basis for comparison. They all resumed professional bridge careers after getting back in the ACBL...Katx and Cohen did so after suing the ACBL!

Personally, I want to see a hearing, with all of the safeguards and protections that would accompany such a hearing, and then, if the evidence warrants, a conviction and a banishment for all time from the game. What I don't want to see is a hearing in which the accused are convicted on the basis that 'everyone knows' that they are cheats.

Since my take is that any hearing will, at least in form, be the 'due process' type of hearing, I do think that my concerns about process to date have a real basis. That isn't to say that the prosecutors won't do it right. But while the hearing may be constrained by proper rules, and may be subject to judicial review if done improperly, there is a real risk that the 'prosecutors' will be amateurs. They either won't know how to properly put together a case, because they lack the legal training, or they won't understand the bridge issues in a way that allows them to articulate the reasoning that ought to flow from the evidence (or to cross examine any evidence from the FS side, including FS themselves).

The fact that so far the experts who have, commendably, spent a huge amount of time on this matter, are screwing up in profound ways, in the context of admissible evidence, doesn't create a lot of confidence that a case will be made, as opposed to there being a case that could be made....I am pretty sure of the latter, worried about the former.

I hope this explains to Arend and to others of like mind why it is important to worry about how the proof is being put together. Or do we want to live in a world in which we punish people without a hearing and on obviously biased 'evidence'? I don't. Do you?

I totally disagree with the very last sentence. You may and probably did convince me that the methodology used is flawed. But bias? Obvious bias? I am looking at everything you said to justify your conclusion about Kit being biased. Did he use wrong methodology? He might have. Was he biased? What happened to your so strict proof/evidence seeking argument when you claim someone is biased? Obviously biased evidence? I repeat again, you do not say "obviously flawed methodology or wrong methodology, you say obviously biased!

You said you were sickened to your stomach, as if Kit is involved in a conspiracy against F-S. Ironic that even though you admitted yourself that you think this pair cheats, you have not said any word in that caliber against them! If you read what you said, the way you said, someone can be convinced that Kit is indeed biased and making up evidence due to this bias. But the things that made you come to this conclusion are not any better than Kit's if not worse. Basically you are doing EXACTLY the same thing that you have been complaining here. You are, just like the people you called "Lynch mob" or "blood thirsty crowd" writing on a public site that Kit Woolsey or Ish are biased and biased to the level that it makes you sick.

And then you finalize your speech with " Or do we want to live in a world in which we punish people without a hearing and on obviously biased 'evidence'? I don't. Do you?"


I mean I give you credit as lawyer. I really do. You are good. And I also understand that due to the nature of being lawyer you want to convince the audience/readers no matter what.. I also understand that you are trying to make your point by hitting the people on their soft side, such as empathy towards a possible innocent person/pair being punished. As if this community have been punishing innocent people on regular basis while cheating issue in bridge is such a rare thing!

But ...really? This pair has been cheating since 2009 and I am not even concluding their teenager times multiple cheating convictions. Even in Bermuda Bowl there are a lot of players who are not pros. There are a lot of people who goes there or other big international events, amateur but decent players, just like yourself, leaving their job, family, spending ***** loads of money. They all go with the hope of winning. They all prepare and train and spend huge deal of effort to do their best. Most of them know they will probably not win, but going there to play the game they love at the highest levels. This pair has been robbing over and over and over again, from you, from others, from their own country men.... I know hands don't mean anything by themselves. But this pair has been lucky for 6 years. You observed videos that there is obviously something going on beyond reasonable doubt, even if you disagree that code has not been broken. Or not broken fully. With all due respect to you, and you know me from here when I say that I respect, I mean it, you are totally ignoring the real probability of this pair being guilty and want to defend his rights while you say you are sickened to your stomach about the way Kit or Ish is biased, or sickened by the outrage of people against this.

[MrAce]

Kit Woolsey

Quote

From some of the comments it appears that I failed to do an adequate job explaining my study. So I will try again.

This study is NOT proof that Fisher-Schwartz were signaling. If my writing implied that I apologize.

The proof we have is from the videos. To my mind, that is solid proof.

I started this study before the code was broken. At that point all which was available were a bunch of hands where FS had taken unusual actions. As I have emphasized before, while these might be indicators that the pair should be looked at that is all they are. Selected hands prove nothing at all. One must examine all of the hands to have a feel for what might be happening.

This study was intended as an attempt to get that feel just from the hands themselves. It demonstrates what I believe is the proper methodology for analyzing whether or not a pair might be signaling from the hands themselves. It is not a conclusive finding. Statistics can never prove anything. But statistics can give us indications. How we interpret these indications is up to us.
I agree that the circular reasoning is a dangerous trap. It is so easy to say the following: I think this pair is cheating from hands I have seen. Look at these hands. They must be cheating. This kind of reasoning must be avoided.

As an example, when we broke the Sion-Cokin code I insisted that we use only half of the hands they played for our analysis. i was afraid that if we used all the hands we might fall into the circular reasoning trap and convince ourselves that we had found something which didn't exist.

As another example, after going through the Israel-Norway match where the video seems completely convincing, I went through the Israel-Hungary match where I knew nothing about the hands. My purpose was to see if I could predict from watching the video what I would find when I saw the hand. Once again, I was trying to guard against circular reasoning.

I had gone through the hands from the semi-finals and finals in some detail since I will be writing up the Spingold for the Bridge World. I had noticed one hand where FS made what I thought was an anti-percentage shift which was successful and would have been signaled by partner.

When Boye posted that he decided they were signaling from the hands in his quarter-final match, I remembered what I had seen. So, I formed the hypothesis that they were signaling for shifts after the opening lead, which seemed to me a logical thing to be signaling. This hypothesis was formed on the basis of one hand from the semi-finals, not from a lot of hands. I then looked carefully through the quarter-final match, and found a few hands which were consistent with that hypothesis. This prompted me to run a full test on all their hands from the Spingold. But the original hypothesis in my mind was formed on the basis of one hand.

Now I ask the following question: Would it have made any difference if instead of Boye saying he thought they were cheating on the basis of his quarter-final match he had said: They were signaling for shifts on defense in his quarter-final match. Would that make my study less valid? Or suppose I hadn't read what Boye had said, but on the basis of that one hand in the semi-finals I decided to take a closer look at this possibility.

Does he sound like a biased man?

Quote

This is response to Richard and others who believe that I was using circular reasoning when I included the hands from the quarter-finals in my study.

I agree that the circular reasoning is a dangerous trap. It is so easy to say the following: I think this pair is cheating from hands I have seen. Look at these hands. They must be cheating. This kind of reasoning must be avoided.

As an example, when we broke the Sion-Cokin code I insisted that we use only half of the hands they played for our analysis. i was afraid that if we used all the hands we might fall into the circular reasoning trap and convince ourselves that we had found something which didn't exist.

As another example, after going through the Israel-Norway match where the video seems completely convincing, I went through the Israel-Hungary match where I knew nothing about the hands. My purpose was to see if I could predict from watching the video what I would find when I saw the hand. Once again, I was trying to guard against circular reasoning.

I had gone through the hands from the semi-finals and finals in some detail since I will be writing up the Spingold for the Bridge World. I had noticed one hand where FS made what I thought was an anti-percentage shift which was successful and would have been signaled by partner.

When Boye posted that he decided they were signaling from the hands in his quarter-final match, I remembered what I had seen. So, I formed the hypothesis that they were signaling for shifts after the opening lead, which seemed to me a logical thing to be signaling. This hypothesis was formed on the basis of one hand from the semi-finals, not from a lot of hands. I then looked carefully through the quarter-final match, and found a few hands which were consistent with that hypothesis. This prompted me to run a full test on all their hands from the Spingold. But the original hypothesis in my mind was formed on the basis of one hand.

Now I ask the following question: Would it have made any difference if instead of Boye saying he thought they were cheating on the basis of his quarter-final match he had said: They were signaling for shifts on defense in his quarter-final match. Would that make my study less valid? Or suppose I hadn't read what Boye had said, but on the basis of that one hand in the semi-finals I decided to take a closer look at this possibility.

I realize this is a slippery slope when it comes to statistical analysis. But I believe for this situation that I kept firm footing on that slope.

This was his reply to Richard (Hrothgar) This is the man who makes Mike sick to his stomach, but not our cheating heroes.


<br style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: proxima-nova, arial, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;">

[mikeh]

Timo


Please calm down

Kit Woolsey does not and did not make me sick to my stomach. I went to his post analyzing a match hoping and expecting an objective analysis. When I read how he dealt with the spade signal hand, I did feel really let down. I knew, from his early posts and responses that others, including statisticians, had made that he had been told, very clearly, how to do the analysis and, rightly or wrongly, I expected to see an analysis sensitive to those concerns. I also have tremendous regard for Woolsey, tho I have never met him so, again, I was expecting something far more objective than what I saw. I was and remain very disappointed. It was that sense of disappointment that I described as making me feel ill.

As for his statements that you have quoted here, I can't easily reconcile them with a post he made on BW to the effect that it is not only permissible but correct to assess FS hands from the presumption that they were cheating. That was staggeringly bad, imo. I really don't know what else to say to you. FS are not 'my cheating heroes'. Based on what I currently understand, there is powerful reason to conclude that they have been cheating for a long time. Based on what I know, there is no way I would ever play on a team with them (of course, that is easy to say since there is no way that I or the great majority of posters would ever be offered such a choice). I would shun them until and unless there is compelling evidence or persuasive argument that they did not cheat, and I have a very difficult time imagining that. At a minimum they would have to explain, persuasively, what they were doing with the board/tray, not to mention coughing etc. And I would be a sceptical audience not because of prejudice but because there is evidence, real evidence, that is suggestive and raises what we in law call a prima facie case....one that requires affirmative rebuttal, not mere denial.

All too many people here seem to think that expressing disagreement with the methods so far on display in terms of investigating the cheating means that those expressing the disagreement somehow think that FS are innocent. Sort of 'if you're not with me, you are against me'.

I strongly disagree with the approach that one twists null or contradictory results into proof of one's suspicions. I strongly disagree with imputing to the suspected cheaters an internal dialogue or monologue explaining that what looks to the outside world as a null or contradictory result is absolutely, without an apparent doubt or recognition of even the possibility of error, further proof of cheating.

For Chrissakes...is this the best we can do? No wonder cheaters get away with it for so long! Botched investigations got Katz-Cohen a successful lawsuit against the ACBL. Botched investigations got the foot soldiers barred but never convicted and poisoned the atmosphere between Italy and the US, in bridge terms, for years. A botched investigation here will see FS lose some market value for a while, may see them not playing together for a while, may drive them to either stop cheating or, more likely, get smarter at it.

Sorry, Timo, your anger is entirely misplaced. I am the opposite of a defender of FS. I want them tried, and if the evidence warrants it, as I expect it does, convicted and them banned for life and then some. When self-appointed experts (as in experts who chose to get involved, not as in the usual BBO/BBF 'experts' who are anything but) spend hours trying to convince the bridge world of the guilt of the accused, it is NOT defending the accused to criticize the mistakes made by the experts.

And for Kit to now claim that he was misunderstood...well, given that I often think myself to be misunderstood, I am not asserting that I am sure he is wrong. I am saying that I think that it was reasonable to assume that he and Ish were claiming to be demonstrating guilt. In fact, I still have trouble understanding what he thinks he was doing otherwise. If the videos were the proof, why not just present the videos, maybe with a table showing what he thinks he saw by way of unusual action, and allow the readers to work it out? Why do all the twisting of null results? Why the 'scoring' of a contradictory result as a positive one?

I think that what has happened is that after the initial enthusiastic endorsement he got from uncritical readers, he has finally twigged to his embarrassing errors and is running for cover, hiding behind excuses. I hope I am wrong...and I recognize that I may be. I still respect the man for the effort he put in. I am morally sure that his heart was in the right place. I just wish he had listened to the advice he got early in the process rather than now, as it appears is the case. He is a better player than I ever was or will be. He has devoted more time to the good of the game than I ever have. He is a better analyst than I am and he took on a task, for the good of the game, that I was never tempted to attempt. So while I am critical of this minor aspect of who he is, I still respect and admire him.

[hrothgar]

FWIW, I am hopeful that some good things will come of this sordid affair.

If nothing else, I believe that the analysis that Boye, Kit, the Swedes, etc. have been doing demonstrates the important of keeping comprehensive records of all of the hands played. The big difference between this case and what happened in Tenerife or back with the foot soldiers is the existence of video feeds and Vugraph records.

[cherdano]

Mike, I do agree that we agree on more than seems obvious from our discussion here.

But I think there is one thing we disagree with: if the set of boards where F-S do not touch the tray coincides with the set of boards where most experts wouldn't want to signal for a suit, then this is not consistent with the null hypothesis! The null hypothesis is that F-S do not cheat; in that case, the selection of boards where they do not touch the tray would be random, and thus very unlikely to match.

Maybe we disagree on what the null hypothesis is: for me the null hypothesis is "F-S do not cheat, and the set of boards where they remove the tray is completely random". Why do I choose this as null hypothesis, and not "F-S do not cheat, and they do not remove the tray"? Well, because the latter is obviously not true, and thus would be trivial to refute. And thus "not touching the tray when there is no reason to signal" is evidence that can (slightly) distinguish the hypothesis from the null hypothesis. How slightly? That depends on how likely they are to remove the tray overall.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2015-September-09, 17:28, said:

Mike, I do agree that we agree on more than seems obvious from our discussion here.

But I think there is one thing we disagree with: if the set of boards where F-S do not touch the tray coincides with the set of boards where most experts wouldn't want to signal for a suit, then this is not consistent with the null hypothesis! The null hypothesis is that F-S do not cheat; in that case, the selection of boards where they do not touch the tray would be random, and thus very unlikely to match.

Maybe we disagree on what the null hypothesis is: for me the null hypothesis is "F-S do not cheat, and the set of boards where they remove the tray is completely random". Why do I choose this as null hypothesis, and not "F-S do not cheat, and they do not remove the tray"? Well, because the latter is obviously not true, and thus would be trivial to refute. And thus "not touching the tray when there is no reason to signal" is evidence that can (slightly) distinguish the hypothesis from the null hypothesis. How slightly? That depends on how likely they are to remove the tray overall.

I may have revealed my ignorance of mathematical terms. When I referred to 'null' results, I wasn't referring to a null hypothesis, altho I think I know that the term means. What I was referring to was what happened on some of the boards analyzed by Ish and Woolsey.

On some of the hands, with F or S on lead, no signal was given. In at least one case the tray was removed very quickly, inconsistent with the code that was based on allowing partner of leader some time to indicate a signal. On another instance, the prediction was that if a spade was desired, a certain action would be made. A spade was led, and seemed to be probably what the partner of leader wanted, but the action was not the presumed signal.

In these instances, the conduct at the table was inconsistent with the notion of how information was to be passed.

What Ish and Woolsey did was to state that the tray was removed quickly because the opening leader had a clear lead, which couldn't be influenced by a signal and that allowing a signal might give evidence of cheating. Now, those arguments are possible interpretations but they weren't presented as possibles but as 'the' explanation. In fact, on the spade 'error', in terms of identifying and predicting the signal, the error was scored as a positive confirmation!

By null result I meant an observation that did not seem to indicate that the expected signal was given. It doesn't matter, for the purposes of identifying a null result, in this sense, why no signal was given. One wants to differentiate between hands on which signals were given or not given.

The reason for looking at signalling hands is to obtain a positive correlation between expected results (derived by people naïve to the actual situation) and observed results (derived from people who watched but who had no idea what the code was thought to be).

The 'null' hands, however, are not meaningless. I explained above how one could derive meaningful information by an objective analysis of the hands on which no signal was given....hands I described as null results, quite possibly erroneously in the sense of proper vocabulary.

As it happens, you and I are in perfect agreement, I think. Let us see if I am right:

If the evidence, properly and neutrally garnered, was that on a set of say 20 boards out of 60, all defending hands, no signal seemed needed, and it turned out that on 19 of them FS gave no signal: that would be meaningless. However, if on the other 40 hands, on which the consensus was that a signal made sense, they gave signals on 38 of them and no signal on only 2, then we can look to not only the signalled hands but also the unsignalled hands to demonstrate an extraordinarily high likelihood that cheating was occurring....and this comes from both sets of hands, not just the one. The previously meaningless lack of signalling was at that time consistent with no cheating, but when viewed in the context of the other set, demonstrates that something is going on.

[Antrax]

mikeh, on 2015-September-09, 10:38, said:

the IBF processes are subordinate in some fashion to the Israeli court system, but I don't know anything much about the governing principles of that court system. I do assume that the system operates on more or less the English/US presumptions and basic evidentiary rules.

I'm not sure who says that. To answer the second question, Israel has a "common law" system inherited from the British.
As for the first, the IBF is a non-profit organization, which does mean it has certain legal responsibilities but nothing that's relevant to this case.
However, F-S can sue the IBF for slander/defamation of character resulting in a loss of wages, for which they might get restitution if they win. I don't think the Israeli court can / will force the IBF to reinstate them, since they weren't working for the IBF.
If that lawsuit were to be filed, the IBF would likely need to prove they acted in good faith and that the accusations are true, to the best of their ability to ascertain. I'm not sure how heavy the burden of proof for the latter part would be. In the past we've had court rulings affirming that Astrology really is a crock of ***** and that a certain NPO was fascist in nature, neither claim can "really" be proven beyond reasonable doubt. So, I don't think that's a huge concern. As long as the process won't be unreasonably stacked, I think even what's currently on BW would be sufficient.

[blackshoe]

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is, as far as I understand things, irrelevant to a civil suit, or to civil law in general, for that matter.

[rhm]

blackshoe, on 2015-September-10, 00:20, said:

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is, as far as I understand things, irrelevant to a civil suit, or to civil law in general, for that matter.

Technically you may be correct for some regions of jurisdictions.

However, from a justice and fairness point of view the level of proof we require to "convict" someone and the safeguards we need should be dependent on the consequences such a conviction has.
Criminal cases are rarely about life and death, even if someone gets convicted.
And there are civil cases like here where the consequences of a conviction is, that you destroy someones reputation and make him an outcast for a long time.

Now, I ask you what safeguards do you consider appropriate in such a case, if not "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

There is much discussion on here on the statistical significance of Kit's results. There are plenty of other examples of possible cheating by F-S, with coughs and use of the water bottle, but even if we just look at signals using the tray placement, we get overwhelming evidence.

http://bridgewinners...ions-be-random/

gave a spreadsheeet by a British mathematician and top double-dummy solver, and also a member of the England team in the Chairman's Cup in Sweden this year. So, he ticks all the boxes as well in terms of credentials as a possible expert witness. It is a pity that this thread did not receive more comments and views than it did.

The method of investigating the alleged cheating might not always have been perfect. However the results are still convincing to all but the odd doubting Thomas.

It is also possible that they signalled working voids during the auction, but I have been through the hand records of the videos that I am aware of, and I could only find one relevant void, so "insufficient data". I also found only one occasion that F-S riffled the corner of the cards making an audible sound, on the same hand that S had a working void. I am fully aware, of course, that, without at least one repeat of the "voidwood" signal, this is woefully insufficient evidence. There are only a small number of coughs purportedly showing 0-4 as well, and plenty of cough-free 0-4s. Most of the latter offer no plausible advantage in telling your partner that you are 0-4, as he can already work it out. The tempo of calls has also been discussed in many threads on bridgewinners, and this is difficult to analyse objectively, as one will often bid quite quickly when one has an obvious pass. Whenever F or S bid quickly however, his partner does seem to assume they are minimum.

[MrAce]

mikeh, on 2015-September-09, 16:17, said:

Timo


Please calm down

Kit Woolsey does not and did not make me sick to my stomach. I went to his post analyzing a match hoping and expecting an objective analysis. When I read how he dealt with the spade signal hand, I did feel really let down. I knew, from his early posts and responses that others, including statisticians, had made that he had been told, very clearly, how to do the analysis and, rightly or wrongly, I expected to see an analysis sensitive to those concerns. I also have tremendous regard for Woolsey, tho I have never met him so, again, I was expecting something far more objective than what I saw. I was and remain very disappointed. It was that sense of disappointment that I described as making me feel ill.

As for his statements that you have quoted here, I can't easily reconcile them with a post he made on BW to the effect that it is not only permissible but correct to assess FS hands from the presumption that they were cheating. That was staggeringly bad, imo. I really don't know what else to say to you. FS are not 'my cheating heroes'. Based on what I currently understand, there is powerful reason to conclude that they have been cheating for a long time. Based on what I know, there is no way I would ever play on a team with them (of course, that is easy to say since there is no way that I or the great majority of posters would ever be offered such a choice). I would shun them until and unless there is compelling evidence or persuasive argument that they did not cheat, and I have a very difficult time imagining that. At a minimum they would have to explain, persuasively, what they were doing with the board/tray, not to mention coughing etc. And I would be a sceptical audience not because of prejudice but because there is evidence, real evidence, that is suggestive and raises what we in law call a prima facie case....one that requires affirmative rebuttal, not mere denial.

All too many people here seem to think that expressing disagreement with the methods so far on display in terms of investigating the cheating means that those expressing the disagreement somehow think that FS are innocent. Sort of 'if you're not with me, you are against me'.

I strongly disagree with the approach that one twists null or contradictory results into proof of one's suspicions. I strongly disagree with imputing to the suspected cheaters an internal dialogue or monologue explaining that what looks to the outside world as a null or contradictory result is absolutely, without an apparent doubt or recognition of even the possibility of error, further proof of cheating.

For Chrissakes...is this the best we can do? No wonder cheaters get away with it for so long! Botched investigations got Katz-Cohen a successful lawsuit against the ACBL. Botched investigations got the foot soldiers barred but never convicted and poisoned the atmosphere between Italy and the US, in bridge terms, for years. A botched investigation here will see FS lose some market value for a while, may see them not playing together for a while, may drive them to either stop cheating or, more likely, get smarter at it.

Sorry, Timo, your anger is entirely misplaced. I am the opposite of a defender of FS. I want them tried, and if the evidence warrants it, as I expect it does, convicted and them banned for life and then some. When self-appointed experts (as in experts who chose to get involved, not as in the usual BBO/BBF 'experts' who are anything but) spend hours trying to convince the bridge world of the guilt of the accused, it is NOT defending the accused to criticize the mistakes made by the experts.

And for Kit to now claim that he was misunderstood...well, given that I often think myself to be misunderstood, I am not asserting that I am sure he is wrong. I am saying that I think that it was reasonable to assume that he and Ish were claiming to be demonstrating guilt. In fact, I still have trouble understanding what he thinks he was doing otherwise. If the videos were the proof, why not just present the videos, maybe with a table showing what he thinks he saw by way of unusual action, and allow the readers to work it out? Why do all the twisting of null results? Why the 'scoring' of a contradictory result as a positive one?

I think that what has happened is that after the initial enthusiastic endorsement he got from uncritical readers, he has finally twigged to his embarrassing errors and is running for cover, hiding behind excuses. I hope I am wrong...and I recognize that I may be. I still respect the man for the effort he put in. I am morally sure that his heart was in the right place. I just wish he had listened to the advice he got early in the process rather than now, as it appears is the case. He is a better player than I ever was or will be. He has devoted more time to the good of the game than I ever have. He is a better analyst than I am and he took on a task, for the good of the game, that I was never tempted to attempt. So while I am critical of this minor aspect of who he is, I still respect and admire him.

Ok Mike, I read this and I also read the PM you sent me. I was not angry. Sorry if I sounded like one. To me you sounded like people in BW were piling on F-S. And that as if we punished a lot of innocent pairs such as F-S with perfect record.
Everyone talking about recorders now. But what good will it do, when even the past cheating records of a player or pair do not mean anything to some people.

About "beyond reasonable doubt". I do not know what this mean to everyone. To me success rate of this pair, their imp average alone are pretty suspicious. They put a doubt in my mind. Whispers and rumours are just whispers and rumours to me. But when this comes from people who are not Joe Sixpack and the fact that each time these people whispered and made rumours turned out to be true with almost 100% accuracy, I do not value them to zero. And when I see hands and luck strike of 6 years then my doubt becomes reasonable, add the videos at the top of it, my doubt becomes way beyond reasonable. (When I say 'hands' do not think of hands that they win only, look at so many other hands ,especially by Ron, that are inferior and then calculate the odds of such success with this play and bidding)

If we break the code totally and it passes the test to the degree that everyone agrees, then it is no more a doubt to me. It becomes fact.

Anything beyond this can be achieved by only a confession. This is how I see it.

[ggwhiz]

Here is a summary of the past disciplines imposed on these guys over the past 12 years!

My link

While I agree that the public hanging is not a proper process the fact that "normal" channels couldn't nail them makes it necessary imo.

A proper process such as Mikeh would approve of is in everyones interest but the status quo is a complete disaster.

[barmar]

zasanya, on 2015-September-09, 10:17, said:

All of us who are participating in Transnationals at Chennai have to sign a commitment form. It has the following 2 clauses among other things
"2. I am aware that the Championship is governed by the Laws of Bridge, the Conditions of Contest, the WBF Disciplinary Code and all other Rules & Regulations of the World Bridge Federation (WBF) and I undertake to comply with such rules, all of which are fully known to me.

3. I therefore agree to be submitted to such rules, regulations, and procedures to the jurisdiction of the bodies and persons that are in charge of applying them. After the exhaustion of internal remedies within the WBF system, I acknowledge that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Lausanne, Switzerland) has ultimate jurisdiction for all disputes in connection with the Championship and agree that recourse to the ordinary courts of law is prohibited."
Do the players submit any such forms in other major bridge events? If yes then recourse to ordinary courts of law is not possible?

I've never seen such a form when playing in an NABC event. IANAL, but I'm not sure whether you can really sign away your right to sue. For instance, I would expect similar contracts to be in place in professional sports leagues, yet Tom Brady was able to take his suspension over Deflategate to court. But it presumably depends on the jurisdiction.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-September-10, 03:47, said:

There is much discussion on here on the statistical significance of Kit's results. There are plenty of other examples of possible cheating by F-S, with coughs and use of the water bottle, but even if we just look at signals using the tray placement, we get overwhelming evidence.

http://bridgewinners...ions-be-random/

gave a spreadsheeet by a British mathematician and top double-dummy solver, and also a member of the England team in the Chairman's Cup in Sweden this year. So, he ticks all the boxes as well in terms of credentials as a possible expert witness. It is a pity that this thread did not receive more comments and views than it did.

Paul's approach is potentially very robust. However, to get those neat powers of two I suspect he is assuming that all four board positions are equally likely. If they're not that could massively affect the answer (for example, if you never vary your board position and happen to come up against a set of boards on which you never hate a club lead, you'll always get a perfect match).

The right (but significantly harder) question to answer is "What probability of getting such a good fit by chance can we achieve if we're allowed to choose how likely each board position is so as to maximise that probability?" Oh, and don't forget that we have to do that for each player separately, since they may put the board down differently from each other.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2015-September-10, 10:03, said:

If you never vary your board position and happen to come up against a set of boards on which you never hate a club lead, you'll always get a perfect match

If they had never varied the board position, then nobody would have accused them of signalling by varying the board position.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2015-September-10, 10:13, said:

If they had never varied the board position, then nobody would have accused them of signalling by varying the board position.

That's an extreme example, of course. But if one position happens to be quite a bit more common than the rest then an observer will tend to assume that corresponds to whichever suit is bad on fewest boards, and the simplistic calculation can significantly underestimate the probability of getting such a good fit by chance.