[Vampyr]

PhantomSac, on 2015-August-31, 21:35, said:

yeah I don't think you got it

No, it's not that; I was just seriously curious as to whether the Bridge World had changed its position. But never mind, it's not really relevant to the thread.

[MrAce]

Quote

Kit Woolsey

I also congratulate Boye on his efforts. While I have often disagreed with some of the actions he has taken, and have told him so, he was the one who saw exactly what FS were doing in the Spingold. It was his speaking up that caused several very intelligent people to examine all the evidence carefully. And it appears that Cullen has succeeded in interpreting that evidence properly. He too is to be congratulated. Since I don't like to take anything anybody says for granted, I am checking every board from the three videos Boye put on his website. I'm a little over halfway through, and I can tell you now that Cullen appears to be 100% correct. When I finish I will post a brief summary of my findings, and then follow up with a detailed board by board description.

Do any of you know what are the findings of Cullen and Bertheau?

[helene_t]

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

♠Qxx
♥void
♦AKQJTxxx
♣xx
Rho opens 1♥ and you pass!!!

This is just amazing and doesn't fall into the general pattern of actions exposed on bridgecheaters which seem almost normal, some slight anti-percentage guesses that happened to work most of the time. Do these guys sometimes make such bizare psyches and if yes, does it also backfire sometimes?

[rhm]

PhantomSac, on 2015-August-31, 15:48, said:

lol if you think it's just the traffic bringing them down. they are being attacked for sure.

This really is like a Hollywood movie

cherdano, on 2015-August-31, 16:11, said:

I'd find that quite plausible - if there are 10 times as many readers reading 10 times as many comments, the load is 100 times of what it was before. Plus having more of anything seems to bring out bugs in everybody's code.
On the other hand, that last phrase may not be apply to code written by Greg H. Plus it was down Monday morning European time (i.e. middle of the night US time) - that did seem a bit odd.

mgoetze, on 2015-August-31, 16:29, said:

Right, I was fully willing to believe it was down because of natural reasons on Sunday evening, but with the problems still ongoing on Monday at noon when I would expect all the Americans to be in bed I started to think there may be more to it than that.

Yeah, let's indulge in some conspiracy theories. So much more fun.
FS hired some Israeli hackers, who learned their trade at the Mossad and they are now sending death squads to Norway to get Boye.
Mossad is good at that

Rainer Herrmann.

[helium]

mikeh, on 2015-August-31, 14:57, said:

I would hope not, but I am sure that I have done equally foolish things in the past. Btw, while I fully understand why low is the percentage play on most hands, I can think of layouts, especially at imps, where the Q is correct, tho I can't think of a plausible example at the one level .

Anyway, everybody makes plays that in hindsight are below their normal standard of play. One of the problems with a retrospective analysis of hands is that we tend to seize upon errors and magnify them to fit our preconceptions.

It was acctually a lot worse then this, the dummy had J109 and Ron covers whit Q8xx

Anyway, if you look at the videos

NOTE: Boye told us that they always insisted on sitting NS, this suggest that they could do something whit the tray, or see the p better, under the scorners then you do EW.

Every time they are in a defense situasjon, the player who's not going to lead never takes the tray of the table, Also the pushing and placement of the trey suggest that they somehow signal leads.

This are really smart guys, not the average expert player but whit really high IQs, Lohan is even regarded as a word-class player, Ron not so good player but a really smart guy.
So there way of cheating is going to be VERY sophisticated IMO, like really subtle hints here and there, when they are on defence they would signal more often then if they declare.
Also they would switch up the meatiest, maybe every month, every tournament or even every session, so it could be really tricky to find 100% proof.

In my mind the sheer number of strange leads that strike gold is way to high for it not to be suspicious, even if its goes wrong from time to time, the times its successful are far more often, i mean how can a pair thats suppose to be a top 10 peir in the world make so many non expert leads plays and still come out ahead?

If anyone still things nothing fishy is up whit this guys, i really feel sorry for you, i agree a lot of the hands sown are not compelling at all, but the videos are pretty damming to me, not to mention there past history of cheating in Israel.

Cheers

[helium]

On the AKQjxxxx hand Ron ofcourse had KJ109 in !H, so 4 !H went down

[gwnn]

Kit Woolsey posts this on the two matches he'd watched:

(from http://bridgewinners...eaters-website/ not sure how to link to the post itself)

Kit Woolsey said:

Here is a quick summary of what I found for the two matches Boye has on his website:

FS were on defense 15 times. Of these, the partner of the opening leader removed the tray 13 times. The other two are easily understood.

On board 25 (vs. Norway), Schwartz opened 1♥, his LHO overcalled 1♠, and the opponents got to 4♠ with no further bidding by FS. Fisher held: ♠742 ♥653 ♦8543 ♣1054. He could see that he would have to lead a heart regardless of partner's signal. since if he led anything else and struck gold that would be a dead giveaway. So in one fluid motion he banged open the screen, tabled the 3 of hearts, and removed the tray.

On board 31 (vs. Norway), Fisher was on lead. Yet he was the one who removed the tray. A careful examination of the video shows what happened. The final pass was on the other side of the screen, so Schwartz and his screenmate scooped up their bids and shoved the tray to the other side – all routine. Fisher and his screenmate scooped up their bids. The tray was now on Fisher's side of the screen, but he wanted Schwartz to remove the tray and give a signal. So Fisher gave the tray a shove to the other side. Examination of all the deals shows that Fisher does this when he is on opening lead and the tray has landed on his side, but he doesn't do this otherwise. Schwartz didn't think he had a clear preference, and the way no preference is signaled is by doing nothing. So Schwartz did nothing, and after waiting a few seconds to see if Schwartz would pick up the tray Fisher just picked it up himself and made his lead.

There is considerably more evidence. On the choice of suit to signal for their signal corresponded with my choice all the time when I thought the choice was clear-cut. When it wasn't clear in my mind, sometimes they made a different signal. Also one can see slight changes in their mannerism when they are giving a signal and when they are doing nothing (i.e. when their side is declaring), but unfortunately this is somewhat subjective and doesn't really hold up as evidence.

I don't know what other videos of them are around. If they exist, particularly from this event (since it is almost certain that they aren't going to be changing their methods during the event), I hope that some other people will make the same kind of analysis that I have made.

Tomorrow I hope to give a board by board display of what I found.

13/15 with the two others getting pretty plausible explanations.

[Antrax]

Hebrew original: http://main.bridge.c...cision-1-he.pdf

F-S have agreed, without implying guilt, to refrain from playing together until the matter is resolved.

[MrAce]

THE CODE (broken by Magnus Magnusson, Iceking in BBO, )


This is how they ask for leads.
1. they are NS
2. If they don't mind what pd leads they leave the trey on
3. They pick up the trey when pd is on lead never pick it up if they are on lead themselves.
4. If they want club the keep the board far away from the middle so pd doesn't see the board this signal for club lead
5. If they want Diamond lead they put the board in the middle
6. Spade and heart lead they put the board in the top and bottom corner.

You can start like in the match against Norway and see it very obviously there, it was some problem on board one as Hoftaniska took the Trey but our heros fixed that for the rest of the match.

[shyams]

I don't post on Bridgewinners, so here is something I noticed on a video not discussed on the other website:

Match: 52nd European Team Championships (Round Robin): Hungary vs Israel. Video link: (click here for the full video). Eurobridge results link: (click here). Other hyperlinks next to individual times below.

E/W declare on 11 of 16 boards - giving us 11 opportunities to test any hypothesis:

Board 1: (@ 8:15) North has opened 1♣ after which E/W bid to 5♥. North is on lead, and South does nothing to the tray (i.e. leaves tray + board in centre of table). North has an automatic lead of high ♣ and does so. Inference: None. Alternatively, that South has no preference or prefers North to make a normal lead.

Board 3: (@ 17:00) In the 3rd seat, North preempts 3♠ and East bids 3NT to end the auction. North removes the tray and replaces the board such that only a small portion of the board is visible to South. South chooses to lead a ♥ {note: the lead was often chosen at other tables, but it is not clear if other Norths bid 3♠ too). Inference: North's removal of tray when South on lead is unusual. North's placement of board may indicate a signal. Is there really a signal and, if so, what is it? That's not clear. It would be worth asking W/C players what they would lead from the South hand, given this specific bidding.

Board 4: (@ 26th minute): E/W reach 6NT after a complicated, uncontested auction. North is on lead. South removes the tray, and puts the board such that it stays exactly halfway in the slot. South continues to hold the board with two fingers probably to stop the board from being moved. South has ♦KJx and a diamond lead looks best from South's side. North leads a ♦, but the contract is unbeatable. Inference: This seemed a clear examples of a potential "lead directing" board placement. However, it must be noted that a diamond lead is repeated on many other tables -- i.e. N/S may not have gained from, or North may not have heeded, the signal.

Board 5: (@ 31:25): E/W bid to an uncontested 3NT. South on lead. North does not touch the tray, and South makes a standard lead of low ♦. Inference: None or a negative inference that North has no preference. Question for experts: Would north prefer to indicate a club lead given their holding and in the context of the bidding? If yes, this board may be contra-indicative (i.e. North choose not to indicate a club).

Board 6: (@ 44:40): E/W bid to an uncontested 3NT (South on lead). North does not touch the tray, and South leads a low ♥. Inference: None or a negative inference that North has no preference. FYI North held a 2-HCP 3343 hand.

Board 7: (@ 49th minute): In a contested auction, N/S have bid and supported ♥ and East bids 3NT "to play". South is on lead, and he removes the tray himself. He places the board and leads a normal ♥. Inference: Outlier. Defies the hypothesis. However, in this instance a ♥ lead is automatic given this bidding.

Board 10: (@ 1hr 6min): E/W reach a poor 2♥ contract after North has shown a ♦ single-suited hand. South is on lead. North does not touch the tray, and South leads a normal ♦. Inference: None. or a negative inference that North does not want anything unusual.

Board 11: (@ 1hr 15min): E/W reach 3NT after South opened 1♥ and North responded 1NT. South is on lead. North does not touch the tray, and South leads a ♥. Perhaps the most damaging lead (double dummy) is a low ♠, but I'm not sure if North can see the need for one. Inference: None. or a (much weaker) negative inference that North does not want anything unusual.

Board 12: (@ 1hr 20min): E/W reach an uncontested 4♥. North is on lead. South removes the tray, and pushes the board all the way across the slot to North's side. Actually, East then pushes the board back to centre as North finds the ♠ lead. South has ♠AJTx and a spade lead is wonderful from South's side. Inference: Another clear example of a potential "lead directing" board placement. Again, it must be noted that a spade lead is repeated on most other tables.

Board 14: (@ 1hr 27min): After two passes, West bids 1NT and plays there. South removes the tray but North, on lead, starts with a low ♠ before South places the board back on the table. Inference: Outlier. However, North holds a 14 HCP hand and a spade lead is automatic. It is reasonable that (from North's angle), South may be too weak to matter.

Board 15: (@ 1hr 33min): E/W bid to an uncontested 5♣. West has shown an extremely shapely two suiter (he held 6-6 in minors). South, on lead, cashes is ♠A without waiting for North to act. Inference: None. There wasn't much in the play but South (with both major aces) guessed dummy's singleton correctly (in ♠). Well done to South (saves a trick)

So that's all boards from one match. In this small sample, there are at least three potential instances of signalling. The fact that they did not gain IMPs is for all of you to debate.

-----------------------------------------------------------

An unrelated but curious thing I noticed. You hold

What is your call? What are other calls you seriously consider?

---

Once you decide, watch the video from @ 53:20 and make your own mind up re. the signal. Did it say anything about the 2♦ bid?

NOTE: Some typos have been since edited and some text modified.

[helene_t]

Pass. No second choice.

[MrAce]

NOTE that in BW, Magnus admitted that he is not accurate with the ♠ signal. He claims club diamond and heart signals remain the same but spade is different.

[shyams]

MrAce, on 2015-September-01, 07:17, said:

NOTE that in BW, Magnus admitted that he is not accurate with the ♠ signal. He claims club diamond and heart signals remain the same but spade is different.

I haven't seen the Poland videos referred to on BW in another thread. However, the signal for ♠ as identified by BW readers is identical to the one used on #12 -- i.e. push board all the way across.

Thought that may be useful for your discussion (if any) on BW.

[Flem72]

MrAce, on 2015-September-01, 02:01, said:

Do any of you know what are the findings of Cullen and Bertheau?

Second this--can't find anything beyond statements that they have a "code solution."

[phil_20686]

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

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).

That isnt a correct way to think imo. We are basically involved in a baysian updating process. Suppose you think that someone is 20% to make this play if they aren't cheating, but 100% to make it if they are cheating, then this is still evidence that they are cheating. Sure, you then combine it with some prior belief, and for most people the prior belief that they are v unlikely to be cheating gets updated to some still very small number. On the other hand if you think that the the chance they are cheating is 100% you will get "unconvinced" a little bit by this example, as there is still some reasonable chance that they aren't cheating based on this hand.

My point is that what you are calling "confirmation bias" is actually a pretty logical way to think. It only becomes a problem if you start to let your prior leak into your estimates of how likely they are to make this play if they aren't cheating.

It also shows why it should be easier to convict top players on their play alone, since the chances of them taking suboptimal lines is much smaller, where for a bad player lots of suboptimal lines will be just as likely, if not more likely than a good line, which makes it virtually impossible to prove cheating allegations without knowing the method.

[Zelandakh]

shyams, on 2015-September-01, 07:48, said:

I haven't seen the Poland videos referred to on BW in another thread. However, the signal for ♠ as identified by BW readers is identical to the one used on #12 -- i.e. push board all the way across.

This was my conclusion, at least for F, but I have not seen enough data points for S to see if this is also the case. In my view, the mere fact that F takes the board and places it exactly in the middle on every hand where N-S declare but does so only a very small percentage of the time when E-W declare is enough to be highly suspicious. Combined with the additional mannerism of pushing it back to the middle when on lead it is difficult not to conclude that something is amiss.

The question I ask is that Justin has already pointed out that there were monitors present and videos taken for all of their ACBL tournaments over a long period. Does anyone actually analyse the data taken? It seems impossible that this could go unseen over an extended period. Of course they might well have been changing their code constantly, indeed I still do not understand why cheats do not use a different code vulnerable to NV, but honestly, as soon as one focuses on the board rather than the tray it is obvious. Surely monitoring should take notes of such things?

As for the fallout, I wonder if this will bring in a system where the players are unable to pass the tray or place the board themselves. It is surely not difficult to implement such a system and it would definitely reduce the opportunities available.

Finally, I have not yet done an analysis of the Holland match video but on a quick viewing I only saw 2 hands where this mannerism was enacted in sight of S. Both of these involved a singleton, one on lead and the other a 4-1 trump break as Dummy. If someone finds more examples it would be good if they could post the time reference.

[mikeh]

phil_20686, on 2015-September-01, 09:00, said:

That isnt a correct way to think imo. We are basically involved in a baysian updating process. Suppose you think that someone is 20% to make this play if they aren't cheating, but 100% to make it if they are cheating, then this is still evidence that they are cheating.

I disagree.

I am not saying 'forget the math', but I am saying that you are forgetting basic psychology. Confirmation bias exists. The circumstances of the unfolding of this tale are perfect examples of how it can be created and how it works.

At the risk of over-simplification, bias will affect how we evaluate the chances that declarer would make this play absent cheating. If we think he is likely cheating, we will lowball our feel for the odds of a legitimate play. If he convinced he is innocent, we will increase our estimate, possibly to the point of arguing that it would be silly to make any other play, given that the lead of the Ace of clubs pretty much gave the show away.


Anyway, I gather that more work has been done into deciphering their methods, and I hope it becomes public. I am speaking of more than Woolsey's 13/15 apparent board placement post on BW.

[mikeh]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-01, 09:07, said:

This was my conclusion, at least for F, but I have not seen enough data points for S to see if this is also the case. In my view, the mere fact that F takes the board and places it exactly in the middle on every hand where N-S declare but does so only a very small percentage of the time when E-W declare is enough to be highly suspicious. Combined with the additional mannerism of pushing it back to the middle when on lead it is difficult not to conclude that something is amiss.

I can think of a very simple, honest reason for placing the board on the table differently when NS are declaring and when EW are.

If one is S and West is declaring, one expects dummy to be laid out on your right. Because we are with screens, dummy may well want to lay the cards down a little closer than without screens, and of course may be laying down a long suit on occasion. It is therefore polite to put the board somewhat to the left, from S's perspective, so as to make it easy for dummy, and to improve declarer's view of the dummy. The opposite applies if West is dummy.

One has to be careful. We need to check to see whether the positioning of the board correlates to who is dummy or which suit the non-leading defender wants to show.

All of this is extremely important detail, and heightens my concern about bias being created. Simplistic, biased reasoning will lead to disaster. Competent lawyers, either expert bridge players themselves or aided by experts, can rip this sort of thing to shreds.

This can lead to an erroneous decision...if the court/tribunal/panel correctly sees 90% of the case as nonsense, it may not be able to recognize the 10% that is pure gold, and will dismiss it along with the crap.

I am pleased to read that one of those who thinks he has cracked the code is actually a Judge, which should prevent this sort of error creeping in.

[phil_20686]

mikeh, on 2015-September-01, 09:20, said:

I disagree.

I am not saying 'forget the math', but I am saying that you are forgetting basic psychology. Confirmation bias exists.

Sure, but on the other hand, there is a danger that we go the other way, and start thinking that every use of prior information is 'confirmation bias'. The truth is that these hands as a collective are much more convincing than any one on its own, and people have thought that Fischer-Schwarz are dirty for years. At the junior euro's years ago, one team would make you put your hands face down on the table and cover up dummy every time one of them got up from the table for some water or a toilet break, they were already convinced way back then.

At some point such a pattern must be taken into account. In bridge, in every hand, a lot of fine judgements must be made in a row, almost all of them are arguable, so its hard for one hand to be convincing. If you were to take the devils argument on almost any hand, you would be able to put together something plausible.

Another strong line of argument is that they do not do things that seem pretty ordinary for the level of player that wins all these things. This hand: was pretty convincing. Playing the Q of clubs is totally clear for a player at this level, or the club T could be your agreement if you use honours to "wake up partner" and SP with pips, or something. Playing the club 8 feels totally wrong, and I bet that BB knows their signalling agreements and would know if the club 8 magically asked for a spade. At that point, playing anything other than a diamond is treating your partner like a d****, sure, I have been that d*** before, sometimes you play too fast and don't signal, but I bet its been years since BB or players on that level have missed such a clear signalling opportunity. If my partner had played a spade after the 8 of clubs, he would have got a black mark in error count right next to mine, since what's the point of signalling if your partner just ignores you in a high stakes situation? It just doesn't exist to be as good as you have to be to win all that stuff, and miss such an easy play/huge edge. His partner could have been A of spades and k of diamonds and need a diamond, just trivially. And the spade ten, just to remove any guess if there is KJ9x or something?

Sure, that's just one hand, but I bet its that, more than anything else, that has convinced so many players that they must be getting their edge somewhere else.

[aguahombre]

mikeh, on 2015-September-01, 09:31, said:

I am pleased to read that one of those who thinks he has cracked the code is actually a Judge, which should prevent this sort of error creeping in.

If someone thinks he has cracked the code, anyone with powers of observation can compare the alleged signals with the actual holdings and confirm the theory. It is the signal, not the bidding or play which is the cheating.