[gwnn]

I assume it was 2D-2H; 2NT-3NT (they alert the first two bids but then the strong hand also writes down his range at the second round), so first-round doubles would have more constructive meanings.

[aguahombre]

 gwnn, on 2015-August-31, 09:36, said:

I assume it was 2D-2H; 2NT-3NT (they alert the first two bids but then the strong hand also writes down his range at the second round), so first-round doubles would have more constructive meanings.

Thank you.

[Aardv]

 aguahombre, on 2015-August-31, 09:30, said:

The auction was described as (I forget the exact wording in the video page) basically 2nt-3nt. It wasn't 2nt-3nt; we can see on the video that there was a bit more bidding. I couldn't see the exact auction to know whether RS had an opportunity to Double something thus assisting the leader -- or whether the actual sequence provided any clues.

The auction was 2♣-2♦, 2NT-3NT. Opener showed 20-21 balanced, 2♦ gave no relevant information. Relevantly, partner was a passed hand. (Board 24 here).

[lamford]

 Aardv, on 2015-August-31, 09:42, said:

The auction was 2♣-2♦, 2NT-3NT. Opener showed 20-21 balanced, 2♦ gave no relevant information. Relevantly, partner was a passed hand. (Board 24 here).

I think the heart lead is normal and I am not sure why this hand is included at all. Its only interest for me is the decision by both Wests not to bid Stayman on a (43)-3-3 hand. Simulations suggest that this is an error, and there is no range where Stayman is wrong opposite 2NT, and only a very narrow range (13-14) where Stayman is wrong opposite a strong NT. Perhaps Phil King has some data because the simulation does not consider information given away by a longer auction.

But we are discussing bridge again; I really must learn that is taking a back seat at the moment ...

[aguahombre]

 Aardv, on 2015-August-31, 09:42, said:

The auction was 2♣-2♦, 2NT-3NT. Opener showed 20-21 balanced, 2♦ gave no relevant information. Relevantly, partner was a passed hand. (Board 24 here).

Before the OL, Barnet says (commentator), "I like a heart." This is mildly interesting and subject to interpretation. We know Barnet can see the whole hand; I don't know if the comment meant he was rooting for a heart lead or he just likes it in theory.

[StevenG]

 billw55, on 2015-August-31, 06:54, said:

I had another thought, if FS are so well known, how do they continue to get teammates? I suppose that pros often do not pick their teammates, that this is done by the sponsors. I wonder what Boye's state of mind was going in to these events with FS on the team.

That's been puzzling me too.

[rhm]

 shyams, on 2015-August-31, 08:25, said:

OK, let me try one more time. I have added cross-references to your post:

1. I was not talking about the reasoning you presented or brought to this forum. I was talking about what we each use to make a decision. Based on your posts, it is my abductive reasoning that you use deductive reasoning to assess the L-S saga.

2. Did you look at each deal (and each bidding sequence) individually or did you look at the holistic pattern? Did you consider deals by T. Bessis or Ish DelMonte as part of the holistic pattern?
I too found a few individual deals unconvincing; so what? When I look at the pattern, I am convinced these are shady occurrences that cannot be explained by logic.

3. What is "reasonable doubt"? Is "preponderance of evidence" a reasonable standard? Or is it "reasonable" as defined subjectively by every individual?

4. If L-S are convicted using abductive reasoning, the European Parliament will eventually pass a law requiring similar (lower) standards of proof in ALL criminal cases across ALL OF THE EU! That's why we should fight tooth and nail to resist it
Oh wait, I'm being facetious. But then I saw no need for your two lines about jail and anglophone world. Discussion of jail sentences and such adds no value in the given context of cheating allegations in competitive bridge.

1) not sure I understand your point here.

2) I am well aware that no single deal can convict cheaters. I looked at a lot of deals presented and if somebody selects one from a set I presume he thinks it is "fishy". If it then turns out the pair has taken the same action as the accuser under comparable circumstances I can not help asking myself , what is the point?
On the majority of deals I looked at I either would have taken the same Bridge action or I can understand the action taken. Only a very small number are not comprehensible to my Bridge insight, like the club lead against 1NT.
But what evidence is this? Even my experienced partners frequently take action which look absurd to me.
If you think at the top level things are different, like Brogeland seems to imply, I suggest you look at Woolsey's weekly series at Bridgewinners.
You will see that on analysis you can find a lot of mistakes done by world-class players.

Unfortunately looking for a "holistic" pattern is too easy once you have a suspicion. I am sure you would find one on my boards, if you select the set and looked hard enough.
I said I know the pair has a bad reputation and their history with the IBF is a good reason why the allegations could be true.

3) I am well aware that "beyond reasonable doubt" means different things to different people. Let me say that for me the doctors were convicted beyond reasonable doubt.
I hold the term "in dubio pro reo" very high, because I know of witch hunts in the past. People are easily convinced of something which may not exist.
There are countless examples. Ir's the way our brain works. We want an explanation and if we do not have one we simply invent one, whether it fits reality well is not so important for our brain.

Rainer Herrmann

[mgoetze]

 lamford, on 2015-August-31, 10:08, said:

I think the heart lead is normal and I am not sure why this hand is included at all. Its only interest for me is the decision by both Wests not to bid Stayman on a (43)-3-3 hand. Simulations suggest that this is an error, and there is no range where Stayman is wrong opposite 2NT, and only a very narrow range (13-14) where Stayman is wrong opposite a strong NT. Perhaps Phil King has some data because the simulation does not consider information given away by a longer auction.

This also makes for one of the most beloved criticisms of the Bird/Anthias book, see e.g. http://bridgewinners...-notrump-leads/ where Eugene Hung categorically states "good players don't bid Stayman with 4333". The reason they don't do it might also be related to the differences between single dummy and double dummy play...

[Antrax]

In an interview, Gilad Ofir, the head of the IBF, supposedly said the IBF received detailed accusations including "a concrete method". However, Israeli newspapers are pretty lousy so it may just be a case of the reporter understanding what's convenient for them.

[mikeh]

I may seem to be blowing hot and cold on this matter. That may be true.

I think there are two separate issues at play here, both relating to our views on whether FS cheat.

On the one hand, we have what appears to be a wide-spread, longstanding consensus amongst the very best players to the effect that they cheat.

I place a lot of weight on that consensus, in terms of my personal opinion. I basically accept it because my knowledge of those amongst the top players I have met, or read about, persuades me that most love the game beyond seeing it as a source of income, and respect it too much to cheat at it. Moreover, while grudges and dislikes can influence perception, for the consensus to be as solid as it seems, I expect there to be more to it than resentment or personal dislike.

So if asked to express my view, it would be that I accept that they are probably cheating, and I would support a major investigation into the matter, with discipline to follow ONLY after a positive outcome to the investigation.

On the other, we now have an increasing amount of what are basically isolated examples, none of which appears, imo, to be conclusive in and of themselves. Some of them in fact appear to me to weaken the case, since the hands seem to show no untoward or inexplicable action, yet are being pit forward as 'evidence'. Imo, what we have seen, especially in the videos, is a long, long way short of proving guilt. That isn't to say that the videos are meaningless. We see some behaviours that look suspicious to us, but would they appear that way were we not primed to see evidence of cheating?

Take the sweater tugging. We see that declarer, whom we are told (on BW) is not viewed as being very good, make what is either a courageous play in trump or use illegal info. Maybe he is a great actor, but he sure seemed to take a very long time before running the diamond 10, which is what one would expect if he were legitimate. Besides, 2 other declarers, in the same contract with the same lead, did exactly the same. Are we accusing them of cheating? Imo, the only reason to see the sweater tugging as evidence of cheating, based on nothing more than this hand, is confirmation bias. We have been primed, as an audience, to think that the video contains evidence of cheating (since Brogeland clearly thinks that it does). It may well be cheating...let me stress that. However, in order to investigate that we need lots more video of Lotan as dummy, and lots more hand records. Is there a correlation between knowledge of an opp's hand and sweater tugging? Are there examples of sweater tugging that contradict our inference that it sends a message? That's what we need: not an isolated example where declarer made what seems to me to be a good, tho brave, play and made his contract, just as did two other declarers.

Take the heart lead: the lead of the low heart was normal. I thought that maybe the tray removal and board placement 'might' be a signal but argued that, as with the sweater, we need more examples, especially since there was an innocent reason for placing the board to the left...dummy was coming down on the right. As for the water bottle placement...take a look at where LHO has his bottle....in exactly the same place as Schwarz places his at the outset of the hand. That move looks innocent to me. Do we have examples where he moves his bottle differently, and do they correspond to his holdings?

Take the picking off of the spade Q in the slam. He is playing against very strong opps, and his early play allows the opps to know a lot..so can he safely infer the shape from their carding? Isn't he left with pretty much of a guess? Again, we need evidence of how Lotan holds and moves his arms and hands on other boards before we can draw inferences about his movements on this board.

I am not saying that he wasn't conveying info. I am saying only that my personal opinion is that many of us may be experiencing the effects of confirmation bias. This is but one reason for disagreeing with Brogeland's approach. Firstly he tells us that he has powerful evidence of cheating, which he will reveal bit by bit. We get a whole lot of posts about how many top players are convicned they cheat. We get a lot of evidence about prior history. We get hands on which it is suggested that an abnormal play was made. Then we get these videos. I don't suggest that Brogeland was doing it this way intending to create this atmosphere, but the 'jury pool' has been very thoroughly conditioned to see what he wants us to see. Of course, what he wants us to see may well be exactly what is there to be seen.....these guys probably are cheating (based on the consensus views of top experts) and he may well have worked out at least part of the method, and what we see may well be that method in action. In fact, given his reputation for skill and integrity, I truly hope that he has the goods on these guys.

I just wish that ALL of the evidence was available, not just the bits that he has chosen so far.

[Aardv]

 mikeh, on 2015-August-31, 11:09, said:

...
Take the sweater tugging. We see that declarer, whom we are told (on BW) is not viewed as being very good, make what is either a courageous play in trump or use illegal info. Maybe he is a great actor, but he sure seemed to take a very long time before running the diamond 10, which is what one would expect if he were legitimate. Besides, 2 other declarers, in the same contract with the same lead, did exactly the same. Are we accusing them of cheating? Imo, the only reason to see the sweater tugging as evidence of cheating, based on nothing more than this hand, is confirmation bias. We have been primed, as an audience, to think that the video contains evidence of cheating (since Brogeland clearly thinks that it does). It may well be cheating...let me stress that. However, in order to investigate that we need lots more video of Lotan as dummy, and lots more hand records. Is there a correlation between knowledge of an opp's hand and sweater tugging? Are there examples of sweater tugging that contradict our inference that it sends a message? That's what we need: not an isolated example where declarer made what seems to me to be a good, tho brave, play and made his contract, just as did two other declarers.
...

I doubt that two other declarers did exactly the same thing (does anyone know?). If you think trumps are lying badly, you run ♦10 on the first round - why shouldn't they be 5-0?

[billw55]

 mikeh, on 2015-August-31, 11:09, said:

I just wish that ALL of the evidence was available, not just the bits that he has chosen so far.

Same here. But do also consider the evidence now coming from other sources.

[mikeh]

 Aardv, on 2015-August-31, 11:27, said:

I doubt that two other declarers did exactly the same thing (does anyone know?). If you think trumps are lying badly, you run ♦10 on the first round - why shouldn't they be 5-0?

because 5-0 is less likely than 4-1. It is also more unlikely, by a narrow margin, than stiff Jack offside. So no, one doesn't run the 10 on the first round. Note that while in a field in which one holds infinite cards, a 5-0 and a stiff Jack are the same odds, but that isn't true when one constrains the hands to 4 suits of 13 cards. Furthermore, the odds are very slightly affected by the failure of the opps to bid as they might with truly extreme shape, notwithstanding the paucity of high cards. I am not competent to tell you the precise odds, but I am confident that running the 10 immediately is a bad play even when one thinks that the trump lie badly. In fact, had he run the 10 right away that would be really suspicious imo.

[lamford]

 Aardv, on 2015-August-31, 11:27, said:

I doubt that two other declarers did exactly the same thing (does anyone know?). If you think trumps are lying badly, you run ♦10 on the first round - why shouldn't they be 5-0?

We do not know that the lead was entered correctly. At least two leads were wrongly entered, the 6H and a diamond. I know one of the declarers but do not have contact details for him. But I agree with mikeh that running the ten on the first round is not right nor normal. And the lead might have been left blank and guessed by an official.

[PhantomSac]

fisher and Schwartz announced that until they clear their name they will not play as partners but maintain their innocence.

also seem to have a baller legal team and are suing boye who is still hiding in a secret location as per the recommendation of the Norwegian police.

lol

[Aardv]

 mikeh, on 2015-August-31, 11:53, said:

because 5-0 is less likely than 4-1. It is also more unlikely, by a narrow margin, than stiff Jack offside. So no, one doesn't run the 10 on the first round. Note that while in a field in which one holds infinite cards, a 5-0 and a stiff Jack are the same odds, but that isn't true when one constrains the hands to 4 suits of 13 cards. Furthermore, the odds are very slightly affected by the failure of the opps to bid as they might with truly extreme shape, notwithstanding the paucity of high cards. I am not competent to tell you the precise odds, but I am confident that running the 10 immediately is a bad play even when one thinks that the trump lie badly. In fact, had he run the 10 right away that would be really suspicious imo.

I am competent. A specific 4-1 break is more likely than a specific 5-0 by a ratio of 13:9, by vacant places.

A priori, with AQ1098 opposite Kxx, the usual line is small to the king, picking up all 3-2 breaks, 4-1 or 5-0 onside, and singleton jack offside (86.7%). The line Schwarz played makes with singleton jack onside or jack offside unless 5-0 (50.9%) (but it's a bit better than that because you usually have a trump coup against 5-0 onside breaks). Running the 10 on the first round makes with jack offside or 5-0 onside (52%).

The usual line is very much better than the finesse, unless you think there's a strong indication that LHO thinks the defence has a trump trick. And if he thinks that, he's much more likely to have Jxxxx than xxxx.

[cherdano]

Mike, if you want more evidence, you just need to watch the entire set instead of the 10 minutes snippets. The board placement after taking away the tray is just too deliberate, and it's not difficult to break the code.

The heart lead was never meant to be conclusive evidence - just a teaser to give everyone an idea of how they are cheating. In any case, if you want conclusive evidence, just read the comments by David Gold on Bridgewinners.

And finally, you may want to consider the damage done by the "no public accusations of cheating" policy/etiquette in bridge. This single set against the English team in 2012 would be considered conclusive evidence of cheating by any competent bridge player, yourself included. They reported it to the appropriate authorities. Nothing happened. If they had gone public three years ago, the bridge world would have been spared its Lance Armstrong story: the most successful run of tournament wins by a young pair (and arguably, any pair, if you factor in tougher competition today) ever was achieved by blatant, egregious cheating (and by a partnership between one world class player and a player you would expect to beat every day of the week if he had to play without illegal help).

I understand you don't like what Brogeland is doing. But what everyone else did (i.e., doing nothing other than filing recorder forms) was much worse if you use a utilitarian moral standard.

[cherdano]

 mikeh, on 2015-August-31, 11:09, said:

We see that declarer, whom we are told (on BW) is not viewed as being very good,

So the play in the animated GIF I posted is from the first match by RS that I looked at: partner leads the lowest ♦ spot against 1NT, a balanced dummy comes down with JTx, and RS covers dummy's honor with Qxxx. Could you imagine a player of your level making this mistake in an important match?

[mikeh]

 cherdano, on 2015-August-31, 14:11, said:

Mike, if you want more evidence, you just need to watch the entire set instead of the 10 minutes snippets. The board placement after taking away the tray is just too deliberate, and it's not difficult to break the code.

The heart lead was never meant to be conclusive evidence - just a teaser to give everyone an idea of how they are cheating. In any case, if you want conclusive evidence, just read the comments by David Gold on Bridgewinners.

And finally, you may want to consider the damage done by the "no public accusations of cheating" policy/etiquette in bridge. This single set against the English team in 2012 would be considered conclusive evidence of cheating by any competent bridge player, yourself included. They reported it to the appropriate authorities. Nothing happened. If they had gone public three years ago, the bridge world would have been spared its Lance Armstrong story: the most successful run of tournament wins by a young pair (and arguably, any pair, if you factor in tougher competition today) ever was achieved by blatant, egregious cheating (and by a partnership between one world class player and a player you would expect to beat every day of the week if he had to play without illegal help).

I understand you don't like what Brogeland is doing. But what everyone else did (i.e., doing nothing other than filing recorder forms) was much worse if you use a utilitarian moral standard.

Arend, I have already come around to accepting that going public was warranted: you need not try to convince me otherwise. I already wrote to that effect.

The problem lies, imo, with the fact that a good lawyer could argue (correctly in my view) that the manner in which the case is being laid out is 'calculated' to create and utilize confirmation bias, as I outlined earlier. We use 'calculated' in a legal sense to mean how it would appear to an objective observer, and NOT to what we assert was the actual subjective intent of the writer. It matters not, in that sense, whether Brogeland was even aware of the possible effect of his approach...only that to an outsider, with no interest in the underlying topic, it seems likely to create that effect.

The problem is that he wants to clean up the game, and he clearly sees that as getting FS banned. But that requires some kind of hearing by a competent bridge authority and it is, as I understand it, a basic tenet of all such processes that at some point the accuseds are entitled, with legal representation, to their 'day in court', in the sense of being able to ask questions of the witnesses against them and to call experts of their own.

Even if the ACBL creates its advisory panel of real experts, that panel won't be the judge or jury (or, at least, that's not the impression I get, and it would be wrong to empanel players who have a clear financial interest in banning the most successful professional pair in the game).

So we will end up, eventually, with a process in which Brogeland, Gold, Ish, etc will all be cross-examined. As a trial lawyer, my impression is that I would go very hard after the way in which these people have put the case out. Please....don't take this as any personal expression or doubt of their honesty or integrity. I am putting myself in the position of a lawyer retained by FS.

I would explore why it is that they chose to firstly create the impression that cheating was 'known', and then, having done so, put forward 'carefully selected' hands, to engender the expectation amongst the audience that we were witnessing cheating.

I would argue that someone really intent on cleaning up the game, with solid evidence of how the cheating was done, would assemble all of the evidence and present it as a unified case.

Now, personally, as I have said before, I trust the WC consensus and I truly hope that the totality of available evidence is conclusive. As for me doing my own investigation, even if I knew where to find ALL of the video that I think needs to be looked at, I don't have the time to do the analysis. And it isn't my job to do it. I am not the one asserting that these former teammates of mine, and competitors for sponsorship money and prestigious titles need to be banned. Let me stress, since I expect you will want to see that last sentence as me expressing questions about motive....I have absolutely no doubt that Brogeland and the others are sincere and honest. I know Allan Graves quite well. We played together for about a year, and I have played in two world championships with him as a teammate, we have had dinners together, and golfed together. He is a friend. I know of no-one with a more whole-hearted love of the game...in the purest possible sense... than him and if he supports the giving up of the titles, as he does, I am absolutely sure that he thinks FS cheat and that is pretty much good enough for me even absent the rest of the information. However, that sort of reaction carries no weight in a formal hearing with legal rules of evidence and burden of proof issues.

If I were counsel for FS, I think that I would have a great deal of 'stuff' with which to work. I would use BW and bridgecheaters as my guide to my cross-examination. As a trial lawyer, I would currently think I had died and gone to heaven (even tho I am an atheist), because cross would be so easy.

Now, if more stuff comes out...if the type of systematic analysis that I and others (on BW and bridgecheaters) have been suggesting has been done or is done, then acting for FS might become an awful position for a lawyer. Right now, it isn't. At least in my view, based on what I have read online to this date. I truly hope that the evidence gets better.

[billw55]

 MrAce, on 2015-August-30, 12:53, said:

Watch this

♠Qxx
♥void
♦AKQJTxxx
♣xx

Rho opens 1♥ and you pass!!!
Lho raises to 2♥
Rho raises to 4♥
And you pass again!!

Just to see you are making nothing and they are going down in 4♥ when pd holds something like KQT9 ♥ !!!

Reported by david Gold.

This is the one that blows my mind the most so far. I mean ... what? Huh? This is really egregious.

(assuming it happened as presented, and by F-S)