[Aardv]

6♦ was played nine times (Group A, Group B) in the Open Teams. At seven tables, the recorded lead is ♣A. At the other two tables, the recorded lead is ♥6, which East didn't have, and ♦5, which seems impossible since the contract went one off (this last table was on BBO, but unfortunately it was board 1 and there's no record of the bidding or play).

Two of the other six declarers who got the ♣A lead made 6♦, the other four went off.

So apparently ♣A is the normal lead, and it's then possible but not usual to get the diamonds right (but I have no information about the other auctions).

Watching the video, it seems odd to me that there's no reaction from Schwarz when Verhees discards on ♦10. But you might argue that just shows he's not acting.

[shyams]

rhm, on 2015-August-31, 05:33, said:

I gave Bridge arguments, nothing else.
(snip)

Most people use abductive reasoning to test the accusation against L-S (and other similar past accusations against others). But some, like RHM in this instance, insist on the use of deductive reasoning as the only test. To this second group, incontrovertible proof beyond all doubt is the only standard. My question is "why?"

Even the legal system does not work on deductive reasoning. For example, civil courts work to a "preponderance of evidence" and not to a "beyond all reasonable doubt" standards. Similarly, it is not necessary that every piece of "evidence" should in isolation incontrovertibly prove the accusation.

Finally, bridge (and other mind sports) requires people to become experts in pattern recognition (in the context of bridge). So with all the leads, bids and plays unearthed, can you recognise the underlying pattern? Is it still not enough to conclude that L-S are cheats?

A "bridge argument" is often about patterns and odds. Let's talk about those holistically in the context of L-S.

[hrothgar]

Question for the lawyers in the room:

Who, if anyone, would have legal standing to bring charges against Fischer and Schwartz?

For example, I would think that the pairs that scored well in the Cavendish would be in a good position to claim damages. On a more speculative note, what about the various sponsors who hired teams to competing in KO events that the Fisher team won? I can't imagine that they are particularly pleased about what has come to pass.

From my own perspective, I have little doubt that Fischer and Schwartz will be drummed out of bridge. I'm not sure how much of a deterrent this is and thing that a few years of costly litigation might prove to be an effective lesson. (And given that F+S have probably teed off some very rich folks, forcing them into costly litigation might be a very feasible route to go)

[billw55]

Well. OK. I am now seeing some evidence that is understandable even to me. Which is pretty lol if you stop to think about it: I am probably the single worst player who posts here regularly. And even I can see it, on some of these hands. How obvious it must be to real players, I can only imagine.

So I am convinced they are cheaters. Which was the likely result all along.

I have previously said that it was the showmanship that bothered me, not the accusation. This was true but ... I am thinking about this some more. These guys have been at this for years, and many top players have known about it for years, apparently. I cannot begin to imagine the frustration of going to these events, year after year, earning ones living, sitting there playing, working ... and knowing you are being cheated right in front of your face. A lot of people must be really angry. But bridge pros are, it seems, very polite people, so there isn't much noise and people don't hear about it.

Boye, like almost everyone else, must have been angry too. I think I can start to see why he took the route he did. Forcing ACBL to action, perhaps, but beyond that just letting it simmer, let the word spread, get the largest possible audience. Maybe it is necessary. The situation must be really bad if such a thing is necessary. But maybe.

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.

[rhm]

shyams, on 2015-August-31, 06:25, said:

Most people use abductive reasoning to test the accusation against L-S (and other similar past accusations against others). But some, like RHM in this instance, insist on the use of deductive reasoning as the only test. To this second group, incontrovertible proof beyond all doubt is the only standard. My question is "why?"

Even the legal system does not work on deductive reasoning. For example, civil courts work to a "preponderance of evidence" and not to a "beyond all reasonable doubt" standards. Similarly, it is not necessary that every piece of "evidence" should in isolation incontrovertibly prove the accusation.

Finally, bridge (and other mind sports) requires people to become experts in pattern recognition (in the context of bridge). So with all the leads, bids and plays unearthed, can you recognise the underlying pattern? Is it still not enough to conclude that L-S are cheats?

A "bridge argument" is often about patterns and odds. Let's talk about those holistically in the context of L-S.

Sorry but this is nonsense.

I have brought forward no reasoning whatsoever, whether abductive or deductive.
I looked at some deals brought forward by Brogeland as evidence and discussed here and found them unconvincing.

But I will tell you:
I consider cheating allegations a very serious one and for the persons involved it is not much different to being accused of a crime, even if the accused will not have to go to jail.
I think they have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and after a fair trial.

And let me tell you the anglophone world is full of miscarriages of justice and not few people have lingered in jail for a long time before their innocence has been shown.
If you reduce the evidence required it is not so difficult to see what the dangers are.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

Aardv, on 2015-August-31, 06:00, said:

6♦ was played nine times (Group A, Group B) in the Open Teams. At seven tables, the recorded lead is ♣A. At the other two tables, the recorded lead is ♥6, which East didn't have, and ♦5, which seems impossible since the contract went one off (this last table was on BBO, but unfortunately it was board 1 and there's no record of the bidding or play).

Two of the other six declarers who got the ♣A lead made 6♦, the other four went off.

So apparently ♣A is the normal lead, and it's then possible but not usual to get the diamonds right (but I have no information about the other auctions).

Watching the video, it seems odd to me that there's no reaction from Schwarz when Verhees discards on ♦10. But you might argue that just shows he's not acting.

This is interesting. Apparently I am not talking "nonsense" as MrAce claims.

If you scrutinize an opening lead the bidding is crucial, because this is the only information the opening leader has besides his hand.
I doubt that at other tables the bidding was the same. Most experts would bid 3♠ over 3♦ with Fisher's hand.
The ♣A is more attractive and less suspicious when you know dummy will come down with a strong spade suit

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

Rainer, I think you are intentionally being obtuse here. Brogeland never claimed that the 3NT hand with the ♥ lead from K9x is evidence of cheating. He posted it so that all of us can get an idea how their cheating works. He has other deals to back up his claims (and in fact, already just watching the entire video is a strong hint towards a system of lead-direction based on picking up the tray and placing the board after the end of the auction).

You may disagree with Brogeland's choice to present the allegation without the full evidence that he has. But you are instead debating a strawman - the claim that the video of the heart lead against 3NT alone is sufficient evidence of cheating to convict F-S.

[mgoetze]

hrothgar, on 2015-August-31, 06:43, said:

Question for the lawyers in the room:

[...]

For example, I would think that the pairs that scored well in the Cavendish [...]

Just because someone is a lawyer does not mean they are well-read in the laws of Monaco, BTW.

[cherdano]

Meanwhile, as for your bridge argument, I think it is very incomplete:

rhm, on 2015-August-31, 05:09, said:

On what is declarer's side suit likely to go away, on what are dummies clubs? I repeat the solid spade suit in dummy is a big surprise.

Strong spades are not a surprise given this is dummy's first bid suit, and given that he forced to slam over 3♦ up to checking keycards.

Quote

This is not matchpoints nor board-a-match.
This is IMPs where you do not care much about overtricks when you are defending a minor suit slam.
When you lead an ace in declarer's side suit you have to balance the chance that this is the only lead to beat the contract against the odds that this will help declarer to make his contract.

At this level playing well is not good enough.
Bridge has poker elements.
You have to put yourself in the minds of your opponents (and often partner) to come to the right decisions.

Ask yourself:
When are you more likely to lead the ace in declarers side suit against a slam?
When you have high hopes for another trick in trumps or when not?

This is game theory.
I think the Dutch opening leader was naive when he let the ace of clubs.

A priori the trump finesse is 50% and a 3-2 break 68%.
After the lead I believe these probabilities have changed.
I would run the ♦T and I sometimes look stupid.

There are other reasons to lead ♣A:

• To try to give partner a ruff if you have a 5-card club suit.
  
• To try to cash a trick before partner gets his trump trick when you are short in diamonds.

And in fact, both reasons indicate that declarer has a decision to make before the first round of trumps - he should consider crossing to ♦K to cater for a diamond void with LHO. But Schwartz only starts thinking after the cashing ♦A.

[mgoetze]

rhm, on 2015-August-31, 07:10, said:

But I will tell you:
I consider cheating allegations a very serious one and for the persons involved it is not much different to being accused of a crime, even if the accused will not have to go to jail.
I think they have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and after a fair trial.

You know, when Fred Goldman brought a civil suit against O.J. Simpson for wrongful death, it was probably not much different than being accused of a crime either. Nevertheless the legal standard that applied was not "beyond a reasonable doubt". It was not even "clear and convincing". No, it was "preponderance of the evidence".

There are very good reasons to demand the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for criminal cases where the defendant could be sent to jail (or worse). Demanding the same standard for bridge cheating allegations is preposterous.

[Aardv]

If ♣A lead is a strong enough indication that the leader is hoping for a trump trick, it seems logical to me to run ♦10 on the first round. That way you can pick up five diamonds in either hand. You pay off to singleton ♦J on your right, but that doesn't fit with your reading of the opening lead.

On the other hand, Boye Brogeland in his book recommends that one should believe a defender's spot cards in trumps. If West's ♦7 on the first round is his lowest trump, that improves the odds on the finesse. (Not that I think Brogeland's advice necessary applies in the European Championships.)

[billw55]

Seems like a lot of focus on just one hand when there are many that are more convincing.

[shyams]

rhm, on 2015-August-31, 07:10, said:

Sorry but this is nonsense.

I have brought forward no reasoning whatsoever, whether abductive or deductive. {Note 1}
I looked at some deals brought forward by Brogeland as evidence and discussed here and found them unconvincing. {Note 2}

But I will tell you:
I consider cheating allegations a very serious one and for the persons involved it is not much different to being accused of a crime, even if the accused will not have to go to jail.
I think they have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt and after a fair trial. {Note 3}

And let me tell you the anglophone world is full of miscarriages of justice and not few people have lingered in jail for a long time before their innocence has been shown.
If you reduce the evidence required it is not so difficult to see what the dangers are. {Note 4}

Rainer Herrmann

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.

[helium]

MrAce, on 2015-August-30, 21:44, said:

I loved the previous one. At least it was asking a suit combination about how to take 4 tricks. I am still trying to solve it...

Yeah thats was a fun puzzle....think you have to play double-dummy?

[gnasher]

cherdano, on 2015-August-31, 07:28, said:

Brogeland never claimed that the 3NT hand with the ♥ lead from K9x is evidence of cheating.

What's really odd is the length of time he took to lead it. Most of us already know what we lead with 109xx Kxx xxx xxx after 2NT-3NT.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-August-31, 09:02, said:

What's really odd is the length of time he took to lead it. Most of us already know what we lead with 109xx Kxx xxx xxx after 2NT-3NT.

Maybe there was a loss of transmission for a while, and he had to wait to get "online".

[lamford]

rhm, on 2015-August-31, 05:09, said:

This is game theory.
I think the Dutch opening leader was naive when he let the ace of clubs.

Yes it is game theory, and, against you, he should cash the ace of clubs whenever he has ♦xx or ♦xxx as well, to protect his partner's jack! And if he had not cashed the ace of clubs, it would indeed have gone away on hearts and then spades after declarer discovered the trump loser.

According to you there is no lead that beats 6H. Ron Schwartz and Deep Finesse both agree. I know one of the declarers who made it, and he is a strong but not world-class player. He may well have reasoned as you did, but it is muddled thinking. The ace of clubs is the normal lead, as it is surely possible for partner to have the king, even against a world-class pair.

[blackshoe]

MrAce, on 2015-August-31, 00:35, said:

For future imo every NBO must be forced to report all convicted cheaters to WBF and EBL. For example Israel may have set the bar for 5th offense to ban for good when it comes to cheating (i am making it up) and that is fine as long as they play in Israel, some other country may set the bar to 3. Most countries that I know may not even allow 2nd chance. All their own business. But WBF-EBL should know it and they should set their bar on their own criteria when it comes to eligibility in international events. As long as NBOs report it, it is easy to prevent a lot of potential risk before the event.
And every NBO, if their player gets caught in any WBF or EBL event should get a mandatory 1 year punishment. If there is negligence than 2+ years.
This way NBOs will feel the necessity to keep an eye on their players much better than they do now.

First, I object to "forced". What's the WBF going to do, declare war on 'em? Second, the EBL is not the only Zonal Authority (ZA) in the world. The procedure should be that the NBO notifies its ZA, the ZA notifies the WBF, and the WBF notifies the other ZAs — though it would work just as well if the NBO copied everybody else on its notification to its ZA. ZAs should be responsible for notifying their constituent NBOs. Then of course if a ZA, or the WBF, or another NBO bans the cheaters (as they should) the same notifications should go out. Third, what mandatory punishment would you suggest for the NBO?

[helium]

captyogi, on 2015-August-28, 04:24, said:

For Cheating in Bridge Game what all methods can be used ?
I narrate one or two methods which come to my mind.
Man is a Creature, all the time progressing, it is this thinking ability of Man, has brought Man from Caveman to Present Status.
Thinking can be Constructive, for the betterment and Progress of Mankind, at a same time it can Destructive type also.

At Local Level Club Tourneys, if there is one Bermuda Level Player and rest normal Exp, Adv, Int and Novice, in Local tournament he will win many times ( nobody will say much ), but not all the times, if it happens all the times , eyebrows will be raised.
Same Player and Regional Level or National / International ( Europe International can be as Good as National Level for USA, India ), where there is competition is Tough and Equally Good Players ( Bermuda / National / International Level ) are there, Results should be mixed, but now if One particular player keeps winning hands down, match after match, thrashing other Top Class Teams 20-0, if eyebrows are raised, gossiping starts, there should be no harm, you cannot directly accuse, but investigation / brain storming starts, what is wrong in that ?.

I put forward some hypothetical , but possible Cheating Methods

Cheating Method 1 :

Expert Level Player gets involved in Dealing, Machine Dealt Boards, copies .PBN or .LIN files on pen drive , takes them home and at peace goes through all the deals, makes note of Typical Deals and makes Good Use of this information on the table, every round of 8 to 10 deals, IMP Scoring, 2 deals, where Slam or Game is not possible to bid , but it is Cold or other way round , Slam or Game has to be bid , but it is bound to fail for sure, are Good Enough for your team to give 20-0 Win.

Cheating Method 2 :

With somebody in Dealing Team or Vu Graf Team, who is willing to compromise integrity, Cheating Expert makes a deal with him ( of course at cost )and gets Dealt Boards .PBN or .LIN files on pen drive, 20-0 victory is assured.

Crooks, Cheats, Terrorist, Guerillas their brain is working overtime all the times, trying device new new innovative methods, world is facing brunt everyday, How Bridge can be exception, we are part of this world. We better prepare to counter such destructive methods and stay alive or perish.

Those were just 2 examples using electronic devises, i can give you a dusin more, not to mention all the other ways possible for experts players to relay UI, like pilling the sweater, elbows, objekts on the table (like the water bottles), and a dusin more i can think of just on the top of my head.
And if they mix this up between sessions we would be in trouble finding definite proof, but so much weard plays/leads/bids are just not possible if you are a top ranking pair, winning every major tournament.
Anyone that says this is not fishy need to get there heads out of the sand IMO.

Cheers

[aguahombre]

gnasher, on 2015-August-31, 09:02, said:

What's really odd is the length of time he took to lead it. Most of us already know what we lead with 109xx Kxx xxx xxx after 2NT-3NT.

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.