BBO Discussion Forums: Elinescu-Wladow were stupid. You haven't found the smart cheats... - BBO Discussion Forums

the hog, on 2014-April-18, 17:32, said:

Somehow, I doubt Ron meant for me to look at the available evidence, but since there is some disagreement over what the evidence actually shows I took the time to review it. I started with what is available from youtube. My notes about what I observed is in the very long spoiler below. The actual observations include timing of coughs and how it fits, or doesn't fit my perceived notion of the alleged coughing system. Then I read the Eddie Wold notes and looked at hands from round 3, then I read the notes from the WBF appointed monitor for round 5 and 6.

My observation on opening lead asking coughs it was 2 for 2 in the video session (the WBF monitor would have it 4-4 because he used a multi-cough code to ask for a lead on two boards.. I had a different opinion on the multi coughs). Either way, that is supportive but not proof of cough for lead. Eddie Wold I think had four-four opening lead coughs, but we will ignore those as self-serving. In the round 6, the WBF monitor had them 2 for 2 with the normal signal and added one more for the extra cough signal that matched. So Just using the direct cough for lead (and ignoring Eddie wold;s notes) the direct cough (one to four) matched up with opening lead all 4 times (two in each session), The coincidence of one to four coughs only occurring on the four hands where partner was going to lead, and then partner leading the suit corresponding to the one to four coughs is too difficult to overlook. There were seven lead chances in the youtube video and eight in the round 6 hand record. On each of the four hand where there was direct cough to alleged lead, the partner lead the corresponding suit. The cougher could have coughed from one to four times, and the leader had four choices to choose from but the lead matched the cough each time. At random if the cough and leads were not related. There would be a 1/4 chance the lead would match. So 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4 = or 1 in 256 chance of this being a random coincidence. This does not include Eddie Wolds notes (which if can be believed would have added three more cases, or 1 in 16,384.

Then there is the coughing for shortness. In the hands I observed, the Germans never coughed with balanced or semibalanced hands. That is, on boards 1,2, 5-16 they had 19 such hands (individual hands) between them and they did not cough once. 0 for 19. On the nine individual hands where they did hold shortness they did cough (9 for 9). Without regard to the meaning of the cough, out of 28 chances to cough, they only coughed on hands with shortness. If there was an equal likelihood to cough with or without shortness, that is they are just as likely to cough at any one time as another, this becomes a binary comparison. The chance they would cough and they would have shortness (or not have shortness) would be 1 out two of 1/2. So this 1/2 x 1/2... 28 times (since they never got one wrong coughing with shortness and not without). The chance of some random occurring event to occur the same way 28 times in row is 1 in 268,435,456. This number gets larger than the odds of winning Warren Buffett's billion dollar NCAA contest if you include the hands noted by the WBF monitor for Session 6. I think, regardless of what the number of coughs mean, if we just test the hypothesis that they cough only with some shortness otherwise pass, the chance that the coughing is instead random is, well, one in more than a quarter billion on the youtube video data alone. How can anyone ignore that observation (check the video for yourself).

As far as the coughing code for short suits, it is only slightly more complicated than one for clubs, two for diamonds, etc. Wladow's cough was 100% until the final board of the video, where he coughs for a short club (he also has short heart), then after his partner opens a weak 1NT he takes control and drives to 4♠ (no need to cough as he knows where he will play). ELINESCU coughs matched the alleged code on three of six hands with shortness. On the other three hands with shortness, he coughed, but the code did not match exactly. On two of these hands he also showed a two suiter, and on the third he had an unusual eight card suit. It is at least possible such hands use a slightly different code -- or the WBF monitor understanding of the code (which I just read today) might be "more" correct than mine.

I don't want to influence anyone's opinion, but my belief is that most bridge players who deal with odds frequently, when confronted with the timing of coughs and the subsequent hand shapes or opening leads would conclude, that the coughs can not be at random events, at least not from a statistical stand point. Feel free to point out the error of this INQUIRY into the issues. Note as always, the observations and any views or opinions expressed in this post are mine, and do not necessarily express the views of BBO or other forum moderators.

CAUTION... DO NOT READ THE SPOILER UNLESS YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT I THINK I OBSERVED ON EACH HAND IN DETAIL. IN REALITY IT IS MEANT FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE WATCHED THE VIDEO AND THINK THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF UI TO HAVE A POINT OF REFERENCE TO DISCUSS OUR DIFFERENT VIEWS OF WHAT WE ARE SEEING.



As an aside, I would not enjoy playing at Wladow's table even if he is 100% innocent of cheating. There were a number of instances where he seemed a very unpleasant. I detailed one over an alert/non-alert issue in the spoiler above (deal 11 at the end of one video (#4) and the beginning of another (#3 don't ask me why they are numbered backwards). Basically Wladow gave an inappropriate (too mild) and unseen alert that lead to a confrontation. If you want to read about that, it is both in the larger spoiler above, and the same text is cut-and-pasted in the shorter spoiler below to keep anyone interested in that topic from wading through the larger spoiler above.

Ben, I think Elinescu's code for short hearts are two coughs - one around the time it's his turn to bid, the other before he pushes the tray through.

As for the alerting situation: I agree that Wladow probably lied about how he alerted. My impression is that lying to directors/committees has been the normal thing to do for this pair. So whatever you think of their teammates responsibility, they did play with a pair of cheats, and they knowingly played with an unethical pair.

nullve, on 2014-April-19, 04:42, said:

RTFLB.

blackshoe, on 2014-April-19, 18:55, said:

I really felt dumb after googling that, getting frozen out of BLML hits, and then figuring it out.

No Ben, the "Inquiry" obviously wasn't aimed at you. Your analysis is very thorough. Ok here is what I believe. Yes, this pair is not a pleasant pair to play against; they are arrogant and rude. This is from my own experience, (though I only played against them once). They certainly are suspect. There may or may not be something in the coughing. It is such a stupid method of cheating that I cannot believe intelligent players would resort to this.

The hearing was certainly not held with the correct principles of justice in mind. I do not intend to mention the reasons again as they have been posted many times.. As someone posted, the circumstances under which the hearing was held, its location and the chairperson are unbelievable for Europeans to comprehend. I think this is so blatant that I would not be at all surprised to see the Doctors sue the WBF and win. Then where are we?

As state before, I find the comments and the people who posted on the BW thread in particular to be amusing. Sapire's example hands and the commentary thereon is infantile in its logic. In the case of some of the posters, one of whom is an international author, the mock outrage is a case of "pot calling kettle". I know this as a fact as it happened against my partner and myself some years ago. The perpetrator was certainly found guilty, but suffered only minimal consequences. I will not post names publicly but if anyone wants a pm on the issue, I will oblige with an answer.. The other one, who has been mentioned a number of times, is a most unethical player. Again this is from personal experience. I am talking about hesitating and making great use of hesitations, pulling cards and holding them above the table before I or partner play, and asking pointed questions eg "Was that a cue bid or showing length in the suit?", and this with a holding of KQxxx, making a sacrifice child's play to find. I find it amusing that this person has a certain "following" amongst posters here and on BW.

These are the things I find annoying. All of us have been guilty of some of these offences, the question is what is the measure of guilt? To those not familiar with German, and I know Arend is of course, I suggest you look up the word "Scheinheilig." I suspect many of the BW posters and quite a few of the posters here are guilty of this. Are you Arend?

the hog, on 2014-April-19, 20:04, said:

Has there ever been a method of cheating that didn't seem stupid after it was detected?

barmar, on 2014-April-19, 20:14, said:

You can hardly say that slotting is stupid. Screens have put paid to most of this though.

the hog, on 2014-April-19, 20:21, said:

Sure it is, because savvy opponents can simply rearrange their hands to defeat it.

"....The hearing was certainly not held with the correct principles of justice in mind. I do not intend to mention the reasons again as they have been posted many times.. As someone posted, the circumstances under which the hearing was held, its location and the chairperson are unbelievable for Europeans to comprehend. I think this is so blatant that I would not be at all surprised to see the Doctors sue the WBF and win. Then where are we?..."


I quote the Hog only in part but hopefully in context, please read entire post #145.

Clearly some if not many here feel this was a miscarriage of justice.

Based on what I have read in these posts it seems that the Laws of WBF and bridge were carried out in full.

We need to hear the other side of this more fully.

I only note there may be disagreement between the "correct principles of justice"
and following the laws of WBF and bridge.

Clearly in America there is constant tension between the "correct principles of justice" and "following the law". These need not be the same.

the hog, on 2014-April-19, 20:04, said:

LOL... yes Ron, I knew you weren't talking about me... I tried to make a joke... to start the long post. Also, I didn't address the "trial", nor do I plan to now. I was just surprised to read a comment from 'bianca21 that "This entire cheating business is rubbish/" and "There is a financial interest involved here. And there is something to be said about sad losers....."

I can understand the complaints about the trail (not gong to discuss it). but I was surprised someone like biancia21 would basically say the entire cheating was rubbish and motivated by financial interest and being sore losers. So I thought I had only read what others had said about the case, and that there was 2 hours of video of one of the sessions. So I could look at it for myself and see what I could find.

It is hard to deny what I found. Without applying any meaning to the number of coughs during the auction just comparing when coughs occurred on 14 hands (28 individual partnership hands) is noteworthy. I will add that other than two exceptions (one before board one was even on the table and one by Wladow when he was about to but the dummy down, these pair was only coughed during the 9 auctions and after two auctions before the opening lead (by the non-leading partner). It seems very odd that the coughing (except for the two exceptions) was only during or at the very end of an auction.

So from my point of view, if the coughing was random (I need to cough), it would have happened more during the play (which was more of the time than the bidding). The limiting of coughing (with the noted exceptions) to only auction was odd. But here is my point. If coughing was random (during bidding phase only) how much of coincidence would it be that these random coughs only occurred on hands with shortness? My estimate above is clearly wrong (I have been told), so I have come up with a new estimate which I will put into another thread in the water cooler. But after watching the video and the coughing, I want to know if anyone can reasonable use the argument that biancia21 used that the allegation of cheating was rubbish?

mike777, on 2014-April-19, 21:05, said:

This is an incredibly schizophrenic post. On the one hand, there was a miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, the laws of the WBF and bridge were carried out in full. On the other hand, we need to hear from the other side more fully.

I read the WBF report. While the meeting in Dallas did not give the accused a real opportunity to appear in person, that really was not necessary. They were given every opportunity to present their case in writing or by video conference. They were given 2 months notice to prepare their defense. They chose to do nothing but protest the procedure.

The German Doctors have every right to protest the procedure. What they do not have the right to do is to ignore their opportunity to present a defense. In every judicial proceeding, if an accused is given an opportunity to present a substantive defense to the charges against him, a failure to avail himself of that opportunity amounts to a waiver. Normally, one does not get two bites at the apple. Now, it may very well be that the Doctors will get the opportunity to present their defense in some subsequent proceeding. But by failing to avail themselves of the opportunity granted to them by the WBF to present their defense at the hearing in Dallas, they will, in the minds of many, if not most, of the world's bridge players be considered guilty as charged, regardless of the outcome of any subsequent proceeding.

The WBF report: https://docs.google....c/preview?pli=1

I wish people post in full context.

yet many prefer to only post part

ARt you post in partial..shame on you for this post. You are better than this last post. You post great stuff in full context I love to read your posts.

If the point was the posters ...have opposing views ..I agree

If your point is you feel the law was followed ..fair enough.

" that really was not necessary. They were given every opportunity to present their case in writing or by video conference"
This is a nonsensical comment. I assume Art has never taken part in a video conference?

"They were given 2 months notice to prepare their defense"
This is incorrect.

I have evidence to suggest that Art is cheating by breaking wind with various patterns. I will hold a hearing next week in Vientiane Laos. If Art does not appear, the hearing will go ahead and he will have no legal representation. Tough! I might give Art a paper copy of some, but not all of the evidence. There are some videos of Art raising his buttocks during the match. His rho looks pained.
PS I don't really have evidence thank heavens, but this is an analogous situation.

ArtK78, on 2014-April-19, 23:32, said:

Which laws and where are the procedures to be followed for such an incident laid out in advance?
Even if, it is still only fair to ask whether the laws and procedures to be followed are appropriate to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
It is my impression, that the WBF did a reasonable good job to gather the evidence.
It is not my impression that the WBF had clear rules how to handle such an incident before hand and was entering virgin soil even though there had been such incidents before.
I hate trial in absentia. The evidence used by the prosecution was not given in full to the accused and in time to prepare a defense.
I do not accept the statement the WBF or for that matter a country, who follows its laid out procedures, can not do a miscarriage of justice.
It is not very hard to find counterexamples to that, say people imprisoned for decades and sometimes on death rows, who were not guilty.

With regard to Ben's post:
It is the first time I see the sort of statistical evidence I am looking for, namely that the coughing can not be random and the match with the hand pattern is precise.
Whether the evidence is correct and stands up to scrutiny I can not verify, but having a mathematical background myself it sounds convincing to me.

With regard to Wladow's behaviour at the table. I did not look through the complete video but I checked the incidence at the end of video 4 and beginning of video 3 mentioned in Ben's post and I must say I disagree. I also understand German.

Wladow had clearly alerted his 1♣ bid and it was in my opinion hard to overlook.
Bates wanted to retract a call he had clearly made and which the rules do not allow in my opinion.
Wladow had every right to call the director. There was also UI because of the retraction attempt.

The director decided against Wladow, probably because he did not have the video evidence at that time or because of Wladow's bad image.
This is a typical Wladow incidence. Wladow is very brisk and gets quickly emotional. I agree, he is not someone you like to play against, but his behaviour there is not clearly unethical.

Rainer Herrmann

I totally agree with what Rainer has posted above.

Just to back up a second.


The jury found them guilty

At this point at least in the Usa justice the burden of proof shifts

I understand in many parts of the world it does not


At the very least it is very difficult to prove you are "NOT GUILTY" AFTER you are proven guilty.

Art78 knows this process better than most of us...it is long very long and very costly!

rhm, on 2014-April-20, 00:45, said:

What there is is on the WBF website, under the heading "Disciplinary Code":

http://worldbridge.o...y-hearings.aspx

Quote

Was the alert made and acknowledged in the manner prescribed by the rules? That is is:
The alert must be made by placing the Alert Card over the last call of the screen-mate, in his segment of the bidding tray; the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the Alert Card to his opponent.
I know that almost nobody actually does this, but if you choose not to alert in the correct way it's your responsibility to ensure that your alert is recognised as such. If you alert in a non-standard way and your screenmate misses it or misinterprets it, it's your fault and it's misinformation.

Of course, this incident tells us nothing about whether they were cheating or not.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2014-April-20, 02:05

Paragraph 6 of the report of the hearing says "... a response was provided dated 14/02/14 to the allegations of potential bias or prejudice and a request that the Defendants confirm within seven days whether or not they wished her [Georgia Heth] to be removed as chairman of the panel. No such request was received within that seven-day period."

Assuming that's true, I think the complaints about the composition of the panel are unfounded, although one might object to the defendants' being given so little time to respond to this.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2014-April-20, 02:05

gnasher, on 2014-April-20, 01:56, said:

To clarify my statement Wladow did not alert according to the above rules. He used his forefinger and at least where I play this is how most people alert behind screens.
Also Wladow had alerted his bids that way all the time and so did the other players.
I am not sure whether the written rules make a distinction here whether screens are in place or not.
For example nobody uses the stop card when screens are in place where I play.

Rainer Herrmann

gnasher, on 2014-April-20, 02:01, said:

I have no reason to doubt that the WBF followed the rules it had in place.
But my main point is I am not convinced that they are appropriate. Ron makes a good hypothetical case above, why not.
You get the impression that the WBF convinced itself as a prosecutor and jury in one that cheating took place.
The case for a fair committee hearing was of lesser importance, except for giving out the punishment.

Rainer Herrmann