[inquiry]

david_c, on Jun 28 2005, 12:44 PM, said:

I don't see why this can't have been serious.

Because

Quote

Mathematically, there's no basis for it at all,

These guys don;t get where they are by ignoring the percentages (and mathematics). It is nothing like

Quote

It's a bit like playing for the queen to lie over the jack in a two-way finesse situation.

Because there, the mathematics is the same, queen can be in either hand. Always play it over the jack, you are right half the time. Blindly guess where it is, you are right have the time. Adopting that silly little rule just keeps you from agonising over a 50=50 guess.

No, an world class player who wins consistently does not let superstitions get in the way of the correct play, or they wouldn't be where they are.

[cherdano]

inquiry, on Jun 28 2005, 05:13 PM, said:

Further he provided several reasons for taking his line. HE needed to win by 20 VP and this was last set and the score was close (now that we know they played this board early rather than late). West asked many questions about the location of the heart king, something that seems odd (still seems odd to me). The odds of finding QT, QTx or Qxxx or QTxx onside versus 2-2 or 1-3 off sdie with stiff queen, while inferior is not THAT inferior if they really need a lot of big swings in a short set of boards to be totally outrageous that you might try for this, expecially given the grilling about the heart king.

Let's go through his reasons:
This was apparently the 3rd board of an 8 board match. They would need to gain 15 IMPs in 8 boards to win with 20 VPs, probably 11-12 to win with 19VPs. I don't think world class players starts making inferior plays for swinging at this point?
Running the Jack is a 30%-44% play (depending on what RHO does with QTx), while the correct line is 52% (I am not absolutely sure about the percentages, depends also on plan in the second round if the Queen covers).
I am not sure in which order they played the boards, but given this was the 3rd, probably 21-24 then 17-20; this is also consistent with the results of this match and his RHO losing focus after this board. In 21, at B-L's table their opponents made 3NT exactly, with 6♥, 6♣cold, and 4♥+2, 6♥= 6♣= normal scores (plus some overcostly sacrifice potential in spades for his side), so they should expect at least to gain 2 IMPs, but potentially a non-vuln slam swing. In board 22, their opponents made 3♣ while B-L could make 3♠, but also go down in 2♠ if the defense finds their heart ruffs -- so only pessimistically a partscore loss. IMHO this makes the claim that the first 2 boards were bad for them almost a lie.
On the deal itself, well look for the Traveller
It is a borderline slam, and in fact less than half of the field bid to 6♦. Why risk this success with making a clear anti-percentage play? (And in fact, their mexican 2♦ opening had worked nicely for the Italians me thinks.)
He claimed the lead of the ♥A was odd. To me, it looks entirely normal (dummy has shown a 2nd suit with MSS after all, I suspect). However, you don't have to trust me, on the traveller you will see that almost everyone led ♥A when 6♦ was declared by South. Further, why should a defender holding ♦x be LESS likely to lead ♥A, than one holding ♦Qx? If anything, I would suspect the opposite.
Finally, the questions about the ♥K. I can't see any reason why this induce one to play LHO for a singleton diamond, as declarer claimed. But then, table feel is something highly subjective, and maybe Ben can explain why he thinks this is indeed an indicator for the diamond play. Do you think a defender holding ♦Qx would just sit back and hope for his diamond trick? I don't think so, especially as he knows they have a 9-card fit. (As an aside, even if LHO knows declarer has ♥K, he may still want to know whether his partner knows this, too, as that might affect the interpretation of his signal...)

I cannot see follow a single of the reasons he gave for playing this line.
Of course, one might still argue that he just made a silly play (we have seen sillier plays on vuegraph for sure -- though by lesser players perhaps), and went zzzzzk when being confronted with the accusation of cheating.

Arend

[david_c]

inquiry, on Jun 28 2005, 05:57 PM, said:

No, an world class player who wins consistently does not let superstitions get in the way of the correct play, or they wouldn't be where they are.

But it's not at all clear what the "correct play" is here, if you take the match situation into account. Perhaps declarer thought that the decision was very close. If after all his deliberations he was still unsure what the correct play was, he might well have been swayed by a silly thing like this. I don't see why this would be so incoceivable for a top player, seeing that the situation is much more complicated than a simple calculation of percentages.

[luis]

I would like to have a transcript of what was said in the comitee, cheaters usually have a very prepared defense for his case while honest players facing accusations say all sort of incoherent things and strange comments.
So saying that not having a good excuse for the play is self-incriminating is a very doubtful dedeuction that they made if that was the case. You have to proof they are guilty not ask them to proof their innocence. I'm not saying they are either guilty or innocent I'm saying I'm not convinced at all by the evidence I've seen so far.
Hanging an inocent pair would be 100 times worst for bridge than letting cheaters go.

[cherdano]

luis, on Jun 28 2005, 07:49 PM, said:

I would like to have a transcript of what was said in the comitee, cheaters usually have a very prepared defense for his case while honest players facing accusations say all sort of incoherent things and strange comments.

I don't think cheaters are prepared to defend themselves - they just don't expect to get caught. Well maybe aside from some blanko defenses like "was playing for a swing, table feel told me..." I suspect you can be right about honest persons, however.

[junyi_zhu]

cherdano, on Jun 28 2005, 05:33 PM, said:

inquiry, on Jun 28 2005, 05:13 PM, said:

Further he provided several reasons for taking his line. HE needed to win by 20 VP and this was last set and the score was close (now that we know they played this board early rather than late). West asked many questions about the location of the heart king, something that seems odd (still seems odd to me). The odds of finding QT, QTx or Qxxx or QTxx onside versus 2-2 or 1-3 off sdie with stiff queen, while inferior is not THAT inferior if they really need a lot of big swings in a short set of boards to be totally outrageous that you might try for this, expecially given the grilling about the heart king.

Let's go through his reasons:
This was apparently the 3rd board of an 8 board match. They would need to gain 15 IMPs in 8 boards to win with 20 VPs, probably 11-12 to win with 19VPs. I don't think world class players starts making inferior plays for swinging at this point?
Running the Jack is a 30%-44% play (depending on what RHO does with QTx), while the correct line is 52% (I am not absolutely sure about the percentages, depends also on plan in the second round if the Queen covers).
I am not sure in which order they played the boards, but given this was the 3rd, probably 21-24 then 17-20; this is also consistent with the results of this match and his RHO losing focus after this board. In 21, at B-L's table their opponents made 3NT exactly, with 6♥, 6♣cold, and 4♥+2, 6♥= 6♣= normal scores (plus some overcostly sacrifice potential in spades for his side), so they should expect at least to gain 2 IMPs, but potentially a non-vuln slam swing. In board 22, their opponents made 3♣ while B-L could make 3♠, but also go down in 2♠ if the defense finds their heart ruffs -- so only pessimistically a partscore loss. IMHO this makes the claim that the first 2 boards were bad for them almost a lie.
On the deal itself, well look for the Traveller
It is a borderline slam, and in fact less than half of the field bid to 6♦. Why risk this success with making a clear anti-percentage play? (And in fact, their mexican 2♦ opening had worked nicely for the Italians me thinks.)
He claimed the lead of the ♥A was odd. To me, it looks entirely normal (dummy has shown a 2nd suit with MSS after all, I suspect). However, you don't have to trust me, on the traveller you will see that almost everyone led ♥A when 6♦ was declared by South. Further, why should a defender holding ♦x be LESS likely to lead ♥A, than one holding ♦Qx? If anything, I would suspect the opposite.
Finally, the questions about the ♥K. I can't see any reason why this induce one to play LHO for a singleton diamond, as declarer claimed. But then, table feel is something highly subjective, and maybe Ben can explain why he thinks this is indeed an indicator for the diamond play. Do you think a defender holding ♦Qx would just sit back and hope for his diamond trick? I don't think so, especially as he knows they have a 9-card fit. (As an aside, even if LHO knows declarer has ♥K, he may still want to know whether his partner knows this, too, as that might affect the interpretation of his signal...)

I cannot see follow a single of the reasons he gave for playing this line.
Of course, one might still argue that he just made a silly play (we have seen sillier plays on vuegraph for sure -- though by lesser players perhaps), and went zzzzzk when being confronted with the accusation of cheating.

Arend

I think your reasoning is reasonable. To me, this 6D is just marginal. Not everybody would bid it. And there is no reason to assume that their opps would land in the same contract. And even if they land in the same contract, it's still way too early for a 8 board match to take an abnormal action in board 3. So the defence by north is rather weak I'd say. For me, I'd probably stay at 5D or 4NT because when I do kickback RKC, I'd find that we miss one KC and trump Q.

[mike777]

luis, on Jun 28 2005, 01:49 PM, said:

I would like to have a transcript of what was said in the comitee, cheaters usually have a very prepared defense for his case while honest players facing accusations say all sort of incoherent things and strange comments.
So saying that not having a good excuse for the play is self-incriminating is a very doubtful dedeuction that they made if that was the case. You have to proof they are guilty not ask them to proof their innocence. I'm not saying they are either guilty or innocent I'm saying I'm not convinced at all by the evidence I've seen so far.
Hanging an inocent pair would be 100 times worst for bridge than letting cheaters go.

1) The OPP's felt they had enough evidence to justify the final judgement.
2) The committee felt they had enough evidence to justify the final judgement.
3) If the present process is deeply and fatally flawed, what is better?
4) Multiple eyewitness accounts are often confusing, misleading and open to many interpretations.
5) Multiple camera angles are often confusing, misleading and open to many interpretations.
6) Of course more evidence is better than less but we are fooling ourselves if we think we are going to have anything near a complete or final answer.
7) If multiple eyewitness and multiple cameras will not give us a final answer and they do not , how can we expect more evidence will give us a complete one?
8) Your last point sounds very noble but not sure if it is true or not or even noble. Are you saying bridge can survive 101 top class cheating pairs but cannot survive hanging one innocent pair?

[luis]

mike777, on Jun 28 2005, 07:39 PM, said:

luis, on Jun 28 2005, 01:49 PM, said:

I would like to have a transcript of what was said in the comitee, cheaters usually have a very prepared defense for his case while honest players facing accusations say all sort of incoherent things and strange comments.
So saying that not having a good excuse for the play is self-incriminating is a very doubtful dedeuction that they made if that was the case. You have to proof they are guilty not ask them to proof their innocence. I'm not saying they are either guilty or innocent I'm saying I'm not convinced at all by the evidence I've seen so far.
Hanging an inocent pair would be 100 times worst for bridge than letting cheaters go.

1) The OPP's felt they had enough evidence to justify the final judgement.
2) The committee felt they had enough evidence to justify the final judgement.
3) If the present process is deeply and fatally flawed, what is better?
4) Multiple eyewitness accounts are often confusing, misleading and open to many interpretations.
5) Multiple camera angles are often confusing, misleading and open to many interpretations.
6) Of course more evidence is better than less but we are fooling ourselves if we think we are going to have anything near a complete or final answer.
7) If multiple eyewitness and multiple cameras will not give us a final answer and they do not , how can we expect more evidence will give us a complete one?
8) Your last point sounds very noble but not sure if it is true or not or even noble. Are you saying bridge can survive 101 top class cheating pairs but cannot survive hanging one innocent pair?

All you say is enough for a comitee to declare a foul board, for example because dummy "may" have taken a peek at his opponents cards and they claim that dummy "may" have transmited information to declarer since they did took a low percentage but succesful line the comitee may declare a foul board based on tha facts they have already published in the bulletin.
But this is not enough to disqualify the whole team or the pair which is saying that they cheat. I would like to see more examples of signals, strange gestures, strange results etc. I'm strongly inclined to think the comitee should have acted in a more subtle way and put that pair under undisclosed observation, taking notes of their positions, gestures etc and carefully recording all the results. Then they would be able to take a decision and present all the evidence they collected for their decision.

[McBruce]

Luis: I would like to have a transcript of what was said in the comitee, cheaters usually have a very prepared defense for his case while honest players facing accusations say all sort of incoherent things and strange comments.


That doesn't sound like a scientific method. In fact, I am quite amazed by the argument, "what would a real cheater do? certainly not this" which we see made in this case and by Reese-Shapiro apologists.

If you play bridge at a high level successfully, you MUST not make gestures or movements that could be misinterpreted. Even if a committee doesn't get you, hearsay will. And yet what do we hear about this pair? They habitually put their heads down on the table. They look at defenders cards without asking when dummy. Having done so, they deny it, but then in almost the same breath mention that they have 20% vision in one eye. They "rest" their right arm on their left forearm so that three fingers point to the player with three trumps, and they do this in three different and distinct ways, coincidentally while partner, on the other side of a screen, is "napping" while thinking about a textbook decision, head conveniently placed so that he can see the fingers clearly through the partition.

I too do not say that one hand is enough to call them cheats. But an expert player should know better than to make any one of those gestures, let alone six or seven in fifteen seconds.

Luis again: So saying that not having a good excuse for the play is self-incriminating is a very doubtful dedeuction that they made if that was the case. You have to proof they are guilty not ask them to proof their innocence. I'm not saying they are either guilty or innocent I'm saying I'm not convinced at all by the evidence I've seen so far. Hanging an inocent pair would be 100 times worst for bridge than letting cheaters go.

The pair was expelled for passing and apparently using unauthorized information; the word cheating is not mentioned. Even if one considers the evidence against using the signals as flimsy, by way of argung that the questions alerted declarer to the bad break, the signals were still passed according to the committee's finding.

At each stage (not just the reason for the anti-percentage play) the North-South pair gave unconvincing responses:

--on the reason for the play, the diamonds-breaking-badly comment, the 'need a swing' comment with only two boards played

--on whether dummy had peeked, a flat denial followed by an excuse involving poor eyesight

--on whether signals were passed, an excuse that this dummy always takes that particular posture, one which makes it impossible to play cards without abandoning the posture, and can hardly be restful if you have to lift your head thirteen times before play ends.

The committee decided that Law 73B2 ("The gravest possible offense is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion.") had been broken, based on the indirect evidence. If all this, from the peeking to the finger tapping to the declarer nap, is a big coincidence, then the North-South pair have been expelled without reason--but they have only themselves to blame.

[cherdano]

luis, on Jun 28 2005, 08:53 PM, said:

I'm strongly inclined to think the comitee should have acted in a more subtle way and put that pair under undisclosed observation, taking notes of their positions, gestures etc and carefully recording all the results. Then they would be able to take a decision and present all the evidence they collected for their decision.

So if they only cheat one very few decisive boards of the event (note that this could well have been the crucial board for qualifying to the KO for them), you want to wait until they find the need to cheat a 2nd time in the Semi-Finals? In the mean time, their opponents from Israel are out of the event. And of course, they may stop cheating once they feel being observed... (And of course changed their signals after they could feel their opponent may have caught them cheating.)

No, they had to take a decision immediately. In fact, I doubt it was formally possible for them not to hold a hearing right away.

Arend

[mike777]

luis, on Jun 28 2005, 02:53 PM, said:

I would like to see more examples of signals, strange gestures, strange results etc. I'm strongly inclined to think the comitee should have acted in a more subtle way and put that pair under undisclosed observation, taking notes of their positions, gestures etc and carefully recording all the results. Then they would be able to take a decision and present all the evidence they collected for their decision.

Committees do not have the power to do any of the above.
1) You want committees to meet in secret session to decide to do this?
2) Have secret talks
3) Hire secret agents to secretly follow around players
4) record all of this in secret
5) Who trains these secret agents?
6) Are the results secret or public if the pair is innocent?
7) What tournament has money and time and people for all this secret stuff?
8) Are the agents and commitee members secret or what?
9) When I get the bad board and have my doubts about that Zia play how I do all of this stuff in secret?

[fifee]

The press release from the disciplinary hearing can be found at : http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/05T...ns/28TuePg3.htm


It's a sad day for our sport when something with these ramifications happens. There are plenty of lawyers standing in the wings these days and reputations and careers can be at stake.

Why not rent rooms at casinos for major bridge tournaments? They have interesting entertainment other than bridge games and they have the hidden cameras in the ceiling.

[epeeist]

Even someone who totally believes EW and believes NS are probably cheaters should still be concerned.

EW accused NS of cheating. Only evidence was what EW said and the fact that S made an anti-percentage play.

That's it. Read the "facts" and "opinion" section of either the press release or the bulletin uday earlier posted a link to.

Look at it the other way.

Let's say on another hand E had made an anti-percentage play. NS (Lanzarotti-Buratti) accused them of cheating. Only evidence was what NS said and that E made an anti-percentage play. Since it was an anti-percentage play, by definition E would have no "legitimate" reason for making the play! Would everyone here who agrees with the decision be happy if the EW Israelis had been punished based on a simple accusation by Lanzarotti-Buratti? Why are the EW team automatically credible and LB not?

My point is, that I consider it dangerous and unfair for a very serious cheating accusation to be accepted based only on what the players say. Because then you get into the situation where anytime such an accusation is made the judgment of the committee will be based upon the reputation (deserved or not) of the players involved! Anyone playing against LB can show each other their cards if they want with impunity because, hey, who's going to believe an accusation by LB?

As for the court analogy, in court testimony is upon oath or affirmation. And if one lies and that is later discovered one may be prosecuted for perjury. Unlike the situation with telling an appeals committee what you think happened.

For the reasons others have explained better, I consider the notion that making the "wrong" play is automatically suspect ridiculous. Is Zia guilty because he bids "bad" 3NT contracts and makes them?

I also haven't heard any explanation, WERE there other witnesses? Kibitzers, vugraph operator, anyone? If so, a fair process would have heard from them. If not, see my concerns above.

[mike777]

epeeist, on Jun 28 2005, 09:39 PM, said:

Even someone who totally believes EW and believes NS are probably cheaters should still be concerned.

EW accused NS of cheating. Only evidence was what EW said and the fact that S made an anti-percentage play.

That's it. Read the "facts" and "opinion" section of either the press release or the bulletin uday earlier posted a link to.

Look at it the other way.

Let's say on another hand E had made an anti-percentage play. NS (Lanzarotti-Buratti) accused them of cheating. Only evidence was what NS said and that E made an anti-percentage play. Since it was an anti-percentage play, by definition E would have no "legitimate" reason for making the play! Would everyone here who agrees with the decision be happy if the EW Israelis had been punished based on a simple accusation by Lanzarotti-Buratti? Why are the EW team automatically credible and LB not?

My point is, that I consider it dangerous and unfair for a very serious cheating accusation to be accepted based only on what the players say. Because then you get into the situation where anytime such an accusation is made the judgment of the committee will be based upon the reputation (deserved or not) of the players involved! Anyone playing against LB can show each other their cards if they want with impunity because, hey, who's going to believe an accusation by LB?

As for the court analogy, in court testimony is upon oath or affirmation. And if one lies and that is later discovered one may be prosecuted for perjury. Unlike the situation with telling an appeals committee what you think happened.

For the reasons others have explained better, I consider the notion that making the "wrong" play is automatically suspect ridiculous. Is Zia guilty because he bids "bad" 3NT contracts and makes them?

I also haven't heard any explanation, WERE there other witnesses? Kibitzers, vugraph operator, anyone? If so, a fair process would have heard from them. If not, see my concerns above.

What What?
1) LOl, there was much more evidence presented, read the facts.
2) The expert opp's feel justified with the decision based on the evidence
3) The expert committee feels justified with the decision based on the evidence.
4) Your comments basically say the opp's and committee based their decision on the basis of being idiots.
5) I have said in other posts, multiple eyewitness and multiple camera views are very often contradictory, confusing and open to many many interpretations and do not lead to more definitive evidence.
6) If you feel the process is fatally flawed ok, but more eyewitness testimony and camera views will resolve nothing. Setting up secret committees with secret people, secret agents, secret discussions will not be a better solution.
7) example: say the eyewitness and camera says head was on table and fingers on arm. That proves nothing more. All of the above could be very very innocent.
8) say the eyewitness and camera views are open to interpretation and confusing, which is often the case, so what?

[McBruce]

luis, on Jun 28 2005, 11:53 AM, said:

luis, on Jun 28 2005, 01:49 PM, said:

I would like to see more examples of signals, strange gestures, strange results etc. I'm strongly inclined to think the comitee should have acted in a more subtle way and put that pair under undisclosed observation, taking notes of their positions, gestures etc and carefully recording all the results. Then they would be able to take a decision and present all the evidence they collected for their decision.

This approach worked so well in Buenos Aires in 1965 that some people still believe that there is no correlation between the pages of notes and the hand records, and the photos of Reese and Shapiro holding their cards like nobody else ever has don't reveal a thing.

Who knows? Maybe there is video and the committee chose not to mention it publicly, but kept it in case of a lawsuit.

[mike777]

McBruce, on Jun 29 2005, 12:40 AM, said:

Who knows?  Maybe there is video and the committee chose not to mention it publicly, but kept it in case of a lawsuit.

Good grief now we have secret evidence posts.
Committee may or may not have secret evidence.
Both sides in dispute either do not know it or if they do they keep it secret
Witnesses and technical people know but do not tell......

Hush Hush, secret testimony, secret evidence..secret video, secret witnesses..whispers in the halls.......

The Muggles do not know, shhhh
The secrets will be revealed on July 15 at midnight in usa.........

[EricK]

helene_t, on Jun 28 2005, 10:31 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jun 28 2005, 02:36 AM, said:

[...]James Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds, pages 33-34:

Experts are also surprisingly bad at what social
scientists call "calibrating" their judgments.  If
your judgments are well calibrated, then you have a
sense of how likely it is that your judgment is
correct.  But experts are much more like normal
people: they routinely overestimate the likelihood
that they're right.[......]
[.....]The only forecasters whose judgments are routinely well
calibrated are expert bridge players and
weathermen.  It rains on 30 percent of the days
when weathermen have predicted a 30 percent chance
of rain.[....]

"Calibrating" is not a good term here (I don't know which is, though).

I wonder if this comparison between currency dealers, physicians, meteorologist and bridge players is fair. After all, bridge players and meteorologist have a tradition of expressing knowledge in terms of probabilites:

If a bridge player says that a given line of play has 75% chance, and it fails, he might still be right (a computer simulation could confirm it).

If a meteorologist says that there's 75% chance that it will be raining and it doesn't, he might still be considered right (at least by his collegues). This is because his estimate is based on a probabilistic model which has been validated in the general case, so it's irelevant if it fails in a particular case.

If a physician says that there's 75% chance that surgery will suceed, and it fails, he will probably be considered wrong. This is for two reasons: first, patients and physicians alike are bad at making decisions based on probabilities. So it doesn't realy matter if the assement is 75% or 95%. In both cases some binary decision (to cut or not) will be made on the basis of the physian's assement, and that decision will "turn out" to be either right or wrong. Second, it is difficult to verify what the probability really was. Maybe if you have 1000 "identical" patients you can verify the assessment that surgery will suceed in appr. 750 cases. But this is not a typical situation. And even in that case, the families of the 250 unlucky patients will say that the physician should have noticed that those cases were not typical.

I would like to believe that bridge players are more honest than other people. But it may have more to do with whether the reader of your message realy wants honest self-assesment. Who wants a physician, politician, judge or military adviser who keeps saying "there's 25% chance that my advice/decision is wrong"?. But a bridge coach, or a meteorologist, can make such statements and keep their job.

I think calibrating is the correct word here.

When surgeons say that there is a 75% of success, you don't need 100s of identical patients to check their accuracy; you simply need 100s of instances where surgeons are predicting 75% of success.

Similarly for meteorologists: If they repeatedly say that there is a 30% chance of rain, and yet it only rains on 20% of those days then their estimates are clearly not calibrated with reality. However it turns out that their estimates are accurate in the probabilistic sense.

And to answer your last point I would dearly love to have physicians, politicians, judges and military advisers who told the truth. If that truth is that my operation has only a 25% chance of success I want to know that. If that truth is that there is a 95% chance that there are no WMD in Iraq then I want to know that too. What surprises me is that there are people who are happy to be lied to by "authority figures".

Eric

[Chamaco]

cherdano, on Jun 28 2005, 05:33 PM, said:

It is a borderline slam, and in fact less than half of the field bid to 6♦. Why risk this success with making a clear anti-percentage play?

Because the swing needed was huge:
let's say they made 6 diamond and at the other table they bid and made 5 diamond.

This swing would not be enough: in orer to recover the lead, BL would absolutely need both of the following:

1- at the ther table they go down in any contract
2- BL make this slam.

So the only chance was that at the other table they had bid to 6D, and that 6D would go down with a logical play, whereas BL needed to make with an illogical play.
Any other combination of chance MIGHT make win BL a handful of IMPS, but not enough to be back in the match.

[helene_t]

EricK, on Jun 29 2005, 08:52 AM, said:

When surgeons say that there is a 75% of success, you don't need 100s of identical patients to check their accuracy; you simply need 100s of instances where surgeons are predicting 75% of success.

True, and that's how Surowiecki reaches his conclusion. But each individual physician can still claim (and even believe) that allthough the average physician is wrong, he's right himself.

Quote

What surprises me is that there are people who are happy to be lied to by "authority figures".

Let me guess: You're a bridge player, right?

Lol. I agree, of course.

[cherdano]

Chamaco, on Jun 29 2005, 08:31 AM, said:

cherdano, on Jun 28 2005, 05:33 PM, said:

It is a borderline slam, and in fact less than half of the field bid to 6♦. Why risk this success with making a clear anti-percentage play?

Because the swing needed was huge:
let's say they made 6 diamond and at the other table they bid and made 5 diamond.

This swing would not be enough: in orer to recover the lead, BL would absolutely need both of the following:

1- at the ther table they go down in any contract
2- BL make this slam.

So the only chance was that at the other table they had bid to 6D, and that 6D would go down with a logical play, whereas BL needed to make with an illogical play.
Any other combination of chance MIGHT make win BL a handful of IMPS, but not enough to be back in the match.

Mauro, this is unfortunately absolutely wrong. They wanted to win 15 IMPs over 8 boards. This was the 3rd board out of 8. The first board had been a potential non-vuln slam swing IN FAVOR of B-L, otherwise almost always a 2 IMP pickup. Second a tie or an unlikely partscore swing against them. Making slam against 3NT in the other room would gain 12 IMPs, meaning that any small swing, or just 3 overtrick would be enough to win by the margin they wanted (and note that winning by 12 IMPs would already mean good chances to go on) -- even if they had not made a gain in the first board.

This is, unless I am wrong about which two boards they had played before (but I didn't see any two bad boards for B-L at all in this set).