[cherdano]

rhm, on 2014-March-30, 08:11, said:

There may have been rumours at the international level. I was not aware of them, but frankly it also sounds a bit like hindsight.
It seems to be a common theme ("we always knew") whenever a pair has been found guilty of cheating.

I am not sure how you get the idea this was hindsight. Should I have made a post on BBF accusing them of cheating?

I happen to remember the last time I had a conversation about the German senior team in a pub. My first reaction was to bring up Wladow-Elinescu, and say something like "They have highly questionable ethics at best, and people I respect very much have a worse opinion on them." The person I talked to just nodded knowingly, and we changed the topic.

While I am German, I have played very little bridge in Germany. I find it hard to believe that I knew more about them than top-level German players. (Of course, I did not know them personally, and maybe in that case that made it easier for me to come to conclusion.)

[cherdano]

rhm, on 2014-March-30, 08:11, said:

I did not claim I prefer teammates of highly questionable ethics or that I do not care.
This was not my point, but this reaction is typical.

My point is this: to anybody with open eyes it was obvious that they had highly questionable ethics. So while their teammates could not know they were playing with cheaters, they did knowingly choose teammates who bend the rules of full disclosure, etc.

[aguahombre]

We are skating very close to the thin ice, here, with respect to Forum policy..when we speculate about team members who have not been the subject of any official action I am aware of.

[cherdano]

aguahombre, on 2014-March-30, 09:52, said:

We are skating very close to the thin ice, here, with respect to Forum policy..when we speculate about team members who have not been the subject of any official action I am aware of.

What forum policies are you concerned about? I did not make any speculation about their team members, and did not accuse them of anything that would warrant an official action.
If I made a post stating that I don't understand how X could partner with Y despite Y's well-known rude table manners, would that also count as "speculation" and "on thin ice with respect to Forum policy"?

[Cascade]

gordontd, on 2014-March-30, 02:45, said:

And another appears to be from Pakistan. So Nigel was wrong about twice as many of them as he was right about.

It doesnt really matter. If one judge is biased or even could be seen to be biased then that is enough to taint an entire panel.

[awm]

The case as presented seems pretty clear-cut. Although holding the committee in the US wasn't best for avoiding appearances of inequity, it's hard to imagine what this pair's defense could be.

The thing that always bothers me in these cases is wondering how prevalent cheating is at the upper echelons. Every time a pair gets caught, it seems they have been under suspicion for years and years. Often the pairs that get caught are doing something pretty blatant and honestly kind of dumb. It makes me wonder how many top flight pairs are "under investigation" at any given time, and how many simply have a more subtle way to cheat. Really a sad situation.

[helene_t]

I don't think cheating is that common. If I were cheating, the fear of getting caught would make me so nervous that I wouldn't be able to play. I think it takes a psychopath to cheat effectively

[Oof Arted]

Cascade, on 2014-March-30, 10:58, said:

It doesnt really matter. If one judge is biased or even could be seen to be biased then that is enough to taint an entire panel.

Wayne are you really suggesting that as the affair was between a team from the USA and a Team from Germany that Judges from the USA should not be used ???

[aguahombre]

cherdano, on 2014-March-30, 09:57, said:

What forum policies are you concerned about? I did not make any speculation about their team members, and did not accuse them of anything that would warrant an official action.
If I made a post stating that I don't understand how X could partner with Y despite Y's well-known rude table manners, would that also count as "speculation" and "on thin ice with respect to Forum policy"?

You are probably right. I was thinking about the Laws/rulings fora, where the mods of those threads discourage naming involved parties other than the OP's themselves --even discouraging sufficient information so that an astute reader could figure out the others involved.

The threads which mentioned the teammates of Sion/Cokin here and elsewhere have come nowhere near suggesting that any of the teammates might have been aware of what was going on with the offending pair. Here, and now, there appear to be such suggestions and that seemed to be a bad idea.

[awm]

My concern is just...

This pair has been around for ages. They have been playing in major international events for ages. They have been (presumably) cheating for at least six years. Their method of cheating via coughing seems pretty dumb and not very subtle.

This sequence of events just doesn't inspire great confidence in our ability to catch cheaters.

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2014-March-30, 02:45, said:

And another appears to be from Pakistan. So Nigel was wrong about twice as many of them as he was right about.

WBF Disciplinary Commission Report, Dallas, Texas, 21-22 Mar 2014 said:

Further correspondence was received from the Defendants continuing with their challenge to the legitimacy of the hearing and the involvement of jeffrey Polisner as Prosecutor and Georgia Heth as Chairman of the Panel, on the premise of their being American and members of the American Contract Bridge League ("ACBL" the National Bridge. Organisation ("NBO") of the team that made the original complainant)

aguahombre, on 2014-March-29, 20:28, said:

The objections to the protocol, location of hearing, and persons handling the investigation/prosecution were all dealt with by the WBF and by the committee.

WBF Disciplinary Commission Report, Dallas, Texas, 21-22 Mar 2014, para 8 said:

Correspondence was received from Ulrich Wenning as President of the DBV dated 26th February 2014 requesting an adjournment of the date of the hearing,- he explained that the Federation was holding its annual general meeting during the weekend fixed for the hearing and its officers were already committed to being involved with those meetings and would not be able to attend the hearing

WBF Disciplinary Commission Report, Dallas, Texas, 21-22 Mar 2014, para 10 said:

The Parties were informed that the hearing was fixed and would proceed on the date stated. lf the Parties wished to have the opportunity of making an appearance by way of a conference video cali that this would be arranged for them. The Parties were again reminded of the right to submit any written representations.

aguahombre, on 2014-March-30, 03:23, said:

There is no indication that people were told what to find or what not to look for.

WBF Disciplinary Commission Report, Dallas, Texas, 21-22 Mar 2014, para 22d said:

... He provided Bertrand Gignoux with a copy of the code determined by Manolo Eminenti and asked him to see if it was used by Wladow-Elinescu during the Cavendish....

I seem to have been mistaken in thinking that the commsision were all ACBL members. Sorry. Nevertheless. the main argument is unaffected: Americans and ACBL members should have recused themselves from the tribunal. More effort should have been made to hold the the hearing at a place and time convenient to the alleged cheaters and the German NBO. (Incidentally, the 3 prosecution witnesses were also from Europe).

[hrothgar]

nige1, on 2014-March-30, 13:06, said:

I seem to have been mistaken in thinking that the commsision were all ACBL members. Sorry. Nevertheless. the main argument is unaffected: Americans and ACBL members should have recused themselves from the commission. More effort should have been made to hold the the hearing at a place and time convenient to the alleged cheaters and the German NBO. (Incidentally, the 3 prosecution witnesses were also from Europe).

You seem to be assuming that that the DVB officials wanted to attend this hearing...

If I were running the place, I'd want to stay as far away from these proceedings as possible (while providing a convenient excuse)
I am aware that the head of the DVB has been providing a spirited defense of him team mates. Haven't seen much else from the organization.

[helene_t]

The American team was not a party in this case. It was akin to a criminal case, not a civil one. Maybe if one of the judges had a close relationship to one of the American players who reported the incident there could have been an issue.

But I think this is silly.

[Cascade]

Oof Arted, on 2014-March-30, 12:23, said:

Wayne are you really suggesting that as the affair was between a team from the USA and a Team from Germany that Judges from the USA should not be used ???

Not necessarily. I do not know the people involved. It is possible that there could be no bias or perceived bias. I would have thought though the norm in an international event would be to avoid possible conflicts of this type.

I just know that it is a principle that one biased adjudicator is enough to taint the entire committee. That is even if a committee votes unanimously in favour of some ruling and it is subsequently found that one member is biased or has a perceived bias that is enough to have a ruling overturned. So in this case saying the judges were from the US and one judge was from the US makes no difference IF it is perceived that a US judge will necessarily be biased.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on 2014-March-30, 13:52, said:

The American team was not a party in this case. It was akin to a criminal case, not a civil one. Maybe if one of the judges had a close relationship to one of the American players who reported the incident there could have been an issue.

But I think this is silly.

There are other ways biases might be perceived Helene. For example it might be perceived that since the USA2 team potentially could be elevated to first place that their is a bias with a US judge.

[nige1]

helene_t, on 2014-March-30, 13:52, said:

The American team was not a party in this case. It was akin to a criminal case, not a civil one. Maybe if one of the judges had a close relationship to one of the American players who reported the incident there could have been an issue. But I think this is silly.

It's a question of appearances. Whenever judges of such allegations are of the same nationality as the suspects or the accusers, in some eyes, justice is compromised. For example…

e.g. The WBF referred Reese and Schapiro to be dealt with by the (British) BBL but after the scrupulously thorough Foster-Bourne Enquiry exonerated them, the WBF (with Americans -- the same nationality as their accusers) repudiated the verdict.

e.g. When the WBF referred the Burgay scandal to the Italian Bridge Federation, it suspended the accuser and lost the vital tapes.

There may be no national bias in such cases but, IMO, for justice to be seen to be done, judges should not belong to the same nation or national organisation as accusers or accused.

[gnasher]

awm, on 2014-March-30, 11:17, said:

The thing that always bothers me in these cases is wondering how prevalent cheating is at the upper echelons. Every time a pair gets caught, it seems they have been under suspicion for years and years. Often the pairs that get caught are doing something pretty blatant and honestly kind of dumb. It makes me wonder how many top flight pairs are "under investigation" at any given time, and how many simply have a more subtle way to cheat. Really a sad situation.

I don't really know, but I think probably very few top pairs are using illegal communication.

Most people are honest, or at least want to have a reputation for honesty.

For a player who does want to gain illegally, the easiest ways to do it are by misusing traditional UI, and by not disclosing your methods properly. It seems quite hard work to design a workable cheating mechanism, and I expect that using it would take a lot of mental energy and make your other thought processes less effective.

[mike777]

Ok so
1) who were the judges?
2) Who were the jury?
3) who appointed the judges and jury?
4) who prosecuted the accused?
5) who defended the accused?
6) what is the appeal process and who?

Or was all of the above the same person?

[aguahombre]

mike777, on 2014-March-30, 16:43, said:

Ok so
1) who were the judges?
2) Who were the jury?
3) who appointed the judges and jury?
4) who prosecuted the accused?
5) who defended the accused?
6) what is the appeal process and who?

Or was all of the above the same person?

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

[ArtK78]

In my opinion, if anyone has a problem with the procedure followed by the WBF in this case, then almost nothing will meet his or her standards.