[jjbrr]

 cherdano, on 2014-July-21, 10:21, said:

This is a good example how far from reality this discussion is.
Elinescu's reply is entirely a reply to the report by the German commission. It does not say anything at all about the trial.

Also, can someone point me to a "highly pertinent" point by Elinescu? His first two are completely ridiculous, and show exactly why (if you are interested in finding out the truth) it can sometimes be best to just do it quietly on your own.

In any case, for me the larger picture is the following: Elinescu and Wladow are guilty, and were banned from bridge in a trial that was of a pretty high standard. Meanwhile, Amanda Knox is almost certainly innocent, and was sentenced to life multliple times; in the US, there are hundreds of innocents sitting in death rows.

If you need to satisfy your desire for outrage about unfair trials, there are plenty of better targets available. You can even choose them match your anti-American or anti-anti-American taste.

lol@you. AK is almost certainly guilty. make a new thread so we don't derail this one and I can drop some facts on you.

[rhm]

 cherdano, on 2014-July-21, 10:21, said:

Also, can someone point me to a "highly pertinent" point by Elinescu? His first two are completely ridiculous, and show exactly why (if you are interested in finding out the truth) it can sometimes be best to just do it quietly on your own.

As I already wrote I have no intention to translate all this stuff but I will give just one example, which I remember impressed me as "Bridge evidence" at the time when it was brought forward by Eddie Wold on Bridgewinner.
This is one example. Of course I am aware that no single board can prove or refute anything.

Eddie Wold wrote on April,5th on Bridgewinner under the heading "Diagnosis: Foul Play"

10) The final hand of the set totally convinced me the doctors were cheating. South held:

...

---

"2NT showed 11-14 HCP, with both minors or 6+ diamonds. Holding a strong notrump opposite opening bid values, he bid 3♣, pass or correct, which runs the risk of missing game or even slam when partner has both minors. I now know he "knew" his partner was going to correct, so he was assured of getting another bid. The full hand:"

---

"I then came out of the room and immediately told my captain that I was sure the German doctors were using some kind of coughing system to send illegal information to their partner."

(end of quote)

At that time I found this persuasive Bridge evidence.

My translation what the German commission wrote about this board:

"It is an unusual action with the South hand to bid a non forcing 3♣ after North has shown a six plus diamond suit or 5-5 in the minors with 10-14 HCP."

To call this action "unusual" sounds to me low-key. I would have chosen stronger terms to describe this action.

Now, however, the translation of what Elinescu wrote about this incident:

....

"After North artificial 2NT opening East thought for at least 1 minute before passing.
It was obvious that he was rankled to get into the bidding, which he finally - after long deliberation - refrained from doing vulnerable in the sandwich position.
South, who could not have escaped noticing the long huddle, opened a trap by a deceptive 3♣ bid.
North alerted and gave the written explanation : Pass or correct

Now East intervened with 3♠,which was doubled and went for 1100.
During the play East realized the trap he had fallen into and called the director and complained in a rude manner "South is strong" and North has given the verbal explanation "weak".
North contradicted that he never said weak but "pass or correct". which was proven.
The director let the score stand, but East raged on, that North lied and this let to a loud exchange between North and East, which continued after the end of the segment.
South trap was an in depth but riskless maneuver. To insinuate illegal information is malicious."

Again, I am not claiming Elinescu has proven his innocence, nor am I convinced, that he is.
But this is in my opinion not his duty.
The allegations have to be judged after the defense had a chance to make their case.

Rainer Herrmann

[nige1]

The Tribunal mentioned damning evidence from the Cavendish -- especially significant because it was collected well after the alleged code was cracked. Officials had ample time for careful preparation. Please post a link to Cavendish observations and relevant videos.

[the hog]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-July-21, 08:35, said:

Someone have a link to the original? Perhaps I can wade my way through the German if it is not too legalistic.

There is a link on the BW site. Yes I agree that the translation does not do credit to the original. I also agree with Rainer that this does not prove the innocence or otherwise of the doctors. However as I stated, Elinescu makes some pertinent comments - one of which is mentioned by Rainer above. If Elinescu's description of events is accurate, his action is logical makes perfect sense to me

I do not see why Arend is persisting with the childish "anti American" argument. No one has posted any comment which could be construed in this way.

[WellSpyder]

 rhm, on 2014-July-21, 16:59, said:

"After North artificial 2NT opening East thought for at least 1 minute before passing.
It was obvious that he was rankled to get into the bidding, which he finally - after long deliberation - refrained from doing vulnerable in the sandwich position.
South, who could not have escaped noticing the long huddle, opened a trap by a deceptive 3♣ bid.

Just a small query - wasn't this event played with screens? If so, isn't it normal for North and East to share the same side of the screen? If so, I'm not sure how South would be aware of who had the long think.

[Zelandakh]

 the hog, on 2014-July-21, 19:18, said:

No one has posted any comment which could be construed in this way.

Point 6 from Elinescu's letter could certainly be seen like this.

[the hog]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-July-22, 02:53, said:

Point 6 from Elinescu's letter could certainly be seen like this.

I was talking about posts on this site, Zel.

[cherdano]

 rhm, on 2014-July-21, 16:59, said:

As I already wrote I have no intention to translate all this stuff but I will give just one example, which I remember impressed me as "Bridge evidence" at the time when it was brought forward by Eddie Wold on Bridgewinner.

Well I am sorry, but this hand was never convincing evidence.

There are two completely independent statistical pieces of evidence:
- In the 14 hands on the videos, the doctors coughed during the auction every single time when they had shortness, and did not cough every single time they had no shortness.
- The results of Kit Woolsey's study on leads.

I made some conservative computations for the latter, posted on bridgewinners. I arrived at a Bayesian factor of about 10,000 - i.e. if you thought that there is a 1% chance that EW are cheating, then after reading that study you should be 99% convinced that they are. (Note that you should take into account the observations about coughing before opening leads before arriving at the 1% figure.) I did not do computations for the former, but I would think the factor would be even larger.

[rhm]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-July-22, 02:31, said:

Just a small query - wasn't this event played with screens? If so, isn't it normal for North and East to share the same side of the screen? If so, I'm not sure how South would be aware of who had the long think.

When bidding takes a long time behind screens you sometimes can deduce who took the time and sometimes not.
However, when your partner starts with an unorthodox preemptive weapon, which has multiple meanings and next hand passes red against white and all this takes an extraordinary long time, is it in doubt for any good player, who took the time?

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

Arend, du scheinst eine richtige Macke zu haben mit diese anti Amerikanische Einstellung. Wieso?

[Zelandakh]

 rhm, on 2014-July-22, 03:50, said:

However, when your partner starts with an unorthodox preemptive weapon, which has multiple meanings and next hand passes red against white and all this takes an extraordinary long time, is it in doubt for any good player, who took the time?

Depends how much time is taken for explanations, no? Given you are a pair known for poor disclosure and that therefore the opps may ask for extra clarification on every detail it does not seem unlikely that this non-thinking period might last a while.

[cherdano]

 the hog, on 2014-July-22, 04:40, said:

Arend, du scheinst eine richtige Macke zu haben mit diese anti Amerikanische Einstellung. Wieso?

Lol. I wrote one on this page, as a joke, about the possibility of choosing your outrage about unfair trials according to your anti-American or anti-anti-American perdisposition. In reply, you wrote twice about me continually brining up the anti-American angle.
So who is obsessed about the anti-American angle? Welcome back to my ignored user list.

[the hog]

 cherdano, on 2014-July-22, 05:17, said:

Lol. I wrote one on this page, as a joke, about the possibility of choosing your outrage about unfair trials according to your anti-American or anti-anti-American perdisposition. In reply, you wrote twice about me continually brining up the anti-American angle.
So who is obsessed about the anti-American angle? Welcome back to my ignored user list.

I think we should let other posters decide who has an obsession. You are a stranger person than I ever thought.

[the hog]

I was not going to post this but in view of some of the previous posts have decided to do so. I am not a mathematician and only have rudimentary undergraduate grasp of statistics. I asked a friend, a retired professor of stats who has many publications to explain the references and posts regarding Bayesian analysis. His comment was that anyone who attempts to apply this to real life situations does not have the slightest idea what he is talking about and is using pseudo mathematical knowledge to attempt to obfuscate his audience. (His words not mine). This is a bit sad really.

[helene_t]

 the hog, on 2014-July-22, 07:20, said:

I asked a friend, a retired professor of stats who has many publications to explain the references and posts regarding Bayesian analysis. His comment was that anyone who attempts to apply this to real life situations does not have the slightest idea what he is talking about and is using pseudo mathematical knowledge to attempt to obfuscate his audience. (His words not mine).

What exactly was he refering to? Applying Bayes factors to real life situations in general? Or something more specific?

[PhilKing]

 the hog, on 2014-July-22, 07:20, said:

I was not going to post this but in view of some of the previous posts have decided to do so. I am not a mathematician and only have rudimentary undergraduate grasp of statistics. I asked a friend, a retired professor of stats who has many publications to explain the references and posts regarding Bayesian analysis. His comment was that anyone who attempts to apply this to real life situations does not have the slightest idea what he is talking about and is using pseudo mathematical knowledge to attempt to obfuscate his audience. (His words not mine). This is a bit sad really.

I thought that was what Bayes' was for (applying it to real life - not the obfuscation bit, although that is clearly more common, and is in itself probably a good example of the Bayes' in action).

[Zelandakh]

Hog, in bridge terms, Bayes Theorem (BT) ~= restricted choice. There are many cases where it is practical, even essential, to apply BT to the real world. That said, I would not try to use it in the way used here because the 1% value is so arbitrary as to be useless and potentially misleading. Some of the maths here is also perhaps somewhat questionable due to the initial signal being assumed to count whereas this is perhaps somewhat arbitrary, akin to the difference between rolling 6 6s in a row or any number 6 times in a row; the point being that we tend to think of the former when it happens when we would in fact have found any number noteworthy. It does not change the fact that the incidence of non-coughing to no shortage is remarkable, even before we start delving into the matches for the code itself.

As an aside, it should be noted that E-W played a complex method that involved using difference systems in different circumstances. If I had been coaching them to cheat I would certainly have used this to produce different schemes to match the system in use. For example using coughing for one system and tray signals for the other or simply different coughing codes (reversing ♠/♣ and ♥/♦ for example). In practise I suspect this would be almost impossible to break and subsequently prove in the relatively short time frame of a single match.

Perhaps I am wrong but I am confident that I could get away with some forms of cheating practically indefinitely if I wanted to. And I would be more than surprised if that was not the case for a significant number of expert pairs, or at least more than anyone would ever suggest. It does not take much to obtain an edge. It is a bit like watching the current Tour de France knowing that certain techniques that we know about - mini transfusions, etc - are effectively undetectable in addition to whatever chemicals have been developed to replace GPO that we do not know about yet. The whole thing leaves me feeling sadly jaded about bridge - there just has to be a better way out there to make things cleaner, even if it means offending the purists who want to keep the personal touch and look their opponent directly in the eye...

[Trinidad]

 the hog, on 2014-July-22, 07:20, said:

I was not going to post this but in view of some of the previous posts have decided to do so. I am not a mathematician and only have rudimentary undergraduate grasp of statistics. I asked a friend, a retired professor of stats who has many publications to explain the references and posts regarding Bayesian analysis. His comment was that anyone who attempts to apply this to real life situations does not have the slightest idea what he is talking about and is using pseudo mathematical knowledge to attempt to obfuscate his audience. (His words not mine). This is a bit sad really.

If I would have to feed every mathematician who told me that his particular corner of math cannot be applied to real life, I would be bankrupt very soon.

That is why we have other scientists (physicists, chemists, engineers, ...). They can do what mathematicans can't. And, so far, it seems to work quite well.

Rik

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2014-July-22, 07:48, said:

That said, I would not try to use it in the way used here because the 1% value is so arvitrary as to be useless and potentially misleading.

But the 1% wasn't Arend's point. The Bayes factor of 10000 was the point. If you prefer you could use the example that if the prior odds were one to a million in favour of non-cheating, you would still have posterior odds of 1 to 100 in favour of non-cheating. Or whatever.

[olegru]

 rhm, on 2014-July-21, 16:59, said:

...
Now, however, the translation of what Elinescu wrote about this incident:
....

"After North artificial 2NT opening East thought for at least 1 minute before passing.
It was obvious that he was rankled to get into the bidding ...

South, who could not have escaped noticing the long huddle, opened a trap by a deceptive 3♣ bid.

It could be true or it could be not true.
Point is: Every single board could be explained by "luck", "table presents" and so on.
Stats cannot be.