[MrAce]

lamford, on 2015-September-13, 13:18, said:

The post was so astonishingly badly written that I was tempted to suggest that he wrote it in his native language and I used Google Translate, but I was hauled over the coals when I once did that on here! The post:

Mr Boye Brogeland is a funny Man When he play with Fischer -Schwartz , he dont speak for cheating but When the next year he loose against this pair

He réveal all , i am not sûre is clean attitude . Poor. Fischer Schwartz if he continue to play with this Man is better

I think one response is enough:
"I don't understand the post. Sorry" - David Gold

Here is why I think I know the upcoming bombshell, if any. Here are the comments that give us hints. all from different posters in BW

1-Meckwell said "Less than 5 pairs"
2-Geoff replied to him "Now less than 4!

Now we know suspected pairs were F-S+3 more.

3-Someone from EBL replied that there were 3 pairs being monitored.

Now we know out of 3 pairs (except F-S) 2 of them represented their country in EC.

4-Although I do not know what kind of time period the poster implied by saying "recent" But he said "One of them is not exactly a top pair but one of the player is well known other is not that well known and recently started competing in NABC events.

If one studies these comments, can pretty much narrow the list down.

[lamford]

Perhaps some should open a book on the next team to withdraw from the Bermuda Bowl. A bit like the various "next manager to get the sack" in some sporting markets.

[mgoetze]

MrAce, on 2015-September-13, 13:52, said:

Here is why I think I know the upcoming bombshell, if any. Here are the comments that give us hints. all from different posters in BW

1-Meckwell said "Less than 5 pairs"
2-Geoff replied to him "Now less than 4!

Now we know suspected pairs were F-S+3 more.

3-Someone from EBL replied that there were 3 pairs being monitored.

Now we know out of 3 pairs (except F-S) 2 of them represented their country in EC.

So everyone who's being monitored is automatically guilty? Are you serious or are you just trying to enrage mikeh?

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2015-September-13, 14:00, said:

Perhaps some should open a book on the next team to withdraw from the Bermuda Bowl. A bit like the various "next manager to get the sack" in some sporting markets.

How would we know from whom not to accept wagers?

[mgoetze]

aguahombre, on 2015-September-13, 14:46, said:

How would we know from whom not to accept wagers?

You can already see all the players and captains registered for the BB on the WBF website.

[aguahombre]

mgoetze, on 2015-September-13, 14:54, said:

You can already see all the players and captains registered for the BB on the WBF website.

And so those are the only ones from whom we should not accept a bet on whether they will withdraw?

[mgoetze]

aguahombre, on 2015-September-13, 15:06, said:

And so those are the only ones from whom we should not accept a bet on whether they will withdraw?

What's your point?

[mikeh]

mgoetze, on 2015-September-13, 14:19, said:

So everyone who's being monitored is automatically guilty? Are you serious or are you just trying to enrage mikeh?

I know this was meant in levity. I don't have any problem at all with monitoring of pairs against whom suspicion has been reported. I think it is in fact an essential reaction by those who run tournaments. The good news is that major events are now often routinely on video, to the point that there is no reason for pairs to fear that their reputation is in jeopardy because of the presence of cameras. In addition, as time goes on, if the videos can be archived, they constitute an invaluable database against which some retrospective analysis can be done (preferably done in the fashion outlined by numerous posters, including me, to remove bias from the analysis).

In fact, in an ideal world, I'd like to see a code broken and NO action taken immediately. Instead, one would let the cheats play another match under video, and with respect to every 'cheating scenario' hand, have a prediction....if so and so does the following, we can expect that his or her hand with have the following characteristic, and/or that partner will do the following action'.

Then we have the smoking gun.

I know Matt Smith quite well. He has to be very circumspect about what he says in private conversation and I am not going to embarrass him by setting out even the very limited, guarded comments he made to me about this yesterday. Not that he said anything that would be embarrassing. He certainly didn't express any beliefs on the current scandal, other than a concern about process. I think it fair, however, to suggest that those in charge of the 'floor' at major events are very well attuned to the whispers against the few top pairs who are subjected to them, and that they do pay close attention. They are at least as well motivated as any top player to get cheats out of the game. And they are not the incompetents or the blind fools that some seem to see them as. They do take fairness very, very seriously. I am sure they all vigorously support widespread video monitoring of all important matches at least as much as the most rabid anti-cheaters we have here or on BW, where, btw, I finally posted.

[mgoetze]

So at this point the next pair of suspects seems like a very poorly kept secret. But I'm almost out of popcorn from watching Tyrod Taylor, Aaron Donald and Marcus Mariota, while BridgeWinners and BridgeCheaters remain eerily quiet...

[MrAce]

mgoetze, on 2015-September-13, 14:19, said:

So everyone who's being monitored is automatically guilty? Are you serious or are you just trying to enrage mikeh?

Where did I say I think someone is guilty? How did you come to a conclusion, from my post that I am trying to find the guilty, let alone saying who is guilty? I gathered some hints written by top players. What I am doing is to predict "which pair(s) THEY think is suspicious" Not "which pair is cheating or guilty" Just because they think a pair is dirty, does not mean I also think they are dirty. Which part of my post made you think that I also think they are guilty?

It can not be coincidence that the number of pairs hinted to us and the number of monitored pairs by organisations are identical except one. But that does not mean they are guilty. And I am still having hard time what mistake have I done in my post to mislead you the idea that I think someone is guilty, let alone who is guilty.

Why would I try to enrage Mike? I value his opinions and told many times privately and publicly. He knows I am straight shooter. We disagree strongly sometimes, but (I think) he values my opinions because I am not just a "follower". And Mike did not even cross my mind when I was typing my comments about predicting "who THEY think is cheating"

[MrAce]

mgoetze, on 2015-September-13, 16:02, said:

So at this point the next pair of suspects seems like a very poorly kept secret. But I'm almost out of popcorn from watching Tyrod Taylor, Aaron Donald and Marcus Mariota, while BridgeWinners and BridgeCheaters remain eerily quiet...

More accurately "Which pair THEY think as suspects are kept secret poorly"

[mgoetze]

MrAce, on 2015-September-13, 16:05, said:

Where did I say I think someone is guilty? How did you come to a conclusion, from my post that I am trying to find the guilty, let alone saying who is guilty? I gathered some hints written by top players. What I am doing is to predict "which pair(s) THEY think is suspicious" Not "which pair is cheating or guilty" Just because they think a pair is dirty, does not mean I also think they are dirty. Which part of my post made you think that I also think they are guilty?

Let's look at your post again:

MrAce, on 2015-September-13, 13:52, said:

Here is why I think I know the upcoming bombshell, if any. Here are the comments that give us hints. all from different posters in BW

1-Meckwell said "Less than 5 pairs"
2-Geoff replied to him "Now less than 4!

Now we know suspected pairs were F-S+3 more.

3-Someone from EBL replied that there were 3 pairs being monitored.

Now we know out of 3 pairs (except F-S) 2 of them represented their country in EC.

Your inference from 1/2 is wrong - "less than 5" does not mean "exactly 4". I am pretty sure, by the way, that there are pairs that play at EBL championships but not ACBL events and I think it's unlikely that Meckstroth would include such pairs in his count, but anyway. I also think 2 is worthless in itself, Geoff was making a throwaway joke and I understood Meckstroth's count to have been post-F/S anyway.

Now from 3, you deduce that 3 of the 0-4 pairs mentioned by Meckstroth were in the EC because they were being monitored. In other words, you are clearly implying that anyone being monitored must also be cheating (or suspected by Meckstroth, which is almost the same thing), i.e. that it is impossible that anyone could be monitored without being a suspected cheater. Honestly I have nowhere near this level of trust in the EBL's decisions about whom to monitor and whom not to monitor.

[MrAce]

mgoetze, on 2015-September-13, 16:16, said:

Let's look at your post again:


Your inference from 1/2 is wrong - "less than 5" does not mean "exactly 4".

It means EXACTLY 4 when it is followed by another poster who replied "Now less than 4" You are entitled to believe these numbers were just given as a joke and/or just came out of mouth coincidentally, then believe so..

I will not comment for the rest of your post since it is hard to do it without upsetting you. Seems like you are so out of touch with understanding what is written by Geoff or me or anyone and keep on getting impressions that are not there.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on 2015-September-13, 15:51, said:

I think it fair, however, to suggest that those in charge of the 'floor' at major events are very well attuned to the whispers against the few top pairs who are subjected to them, and that they do pay close attention. They are at least as well motivated as any top player to get cheats out of the game. And they are not the incompetents or the blind fools that some seem to see them as. They do take fairness very, very seriously. I am sure they all vigorously support widespread video monitoring of all important matches at least as much as the most rabid anti-cheaters we have here or on BW, where, btw, I finally posted.

If they are as well motivated and not incompetent - then why haven't they been able to catch anyone? Was F-S' cheating really that hard to spot?

In any case, I don't know what Matt Smith's role in the ACBL disciplinary process is. But of course anyone part of that process has a natural bias against what has happened - just like taxi drivers have a bias against Uber.

Btw, I guess one reason why we disagree on this process so much is that you have a lot more trust in the process using proper channels and behind closed doors. In my view, it hasn't failed terribly in catching cheaters. But I also don't think the public process we had with F-S is any more likely to lead to wrong "convictions" than the process in proper committees. I mean, if any of the terrible things Kit Woolsey wrote (in your view) would be material to the result of his analysis, then there would be a lot of complaints about it in the BW comments. I find it much more likely that a faulty analysis would prevail in an ACBL committee than on BW. But since it "holds up to cross" it must have been true.

[mikeh]

cherdano, on 2015-September-13, 16:29, said:

If they are as well motivated and not incompetent - then why haven't they been able to catch anyone? Was F-S' cheating really that hard to spot?

In any case, I don't know what Matt Smith's role in the ACBL disciplinary process is.

I don't know Matt's exact title/role, but he is, I think, one of the TDs who is 'in charge' as NABCs...about as high a level of refereeing or TD as one can get, and is one of the head directors at all World Championships. So he has a lot of insight and experience. He wouldn't get to sit on any committees of course, so may not have a judicial role in the formal disciplinary procedures that follow charges. He would likely be involved, either personally or in a supervisory role, in the gathering of evidence, to the extent that the TD's knowledge of what happened is relevant

Quote

Btw, I guess one reason why we disagree on this process so much is that you have a lot more trust in the process using proper channels and behind closed doors.

No. I don't have enormous trust in how effective the closed door practices are. Cheats have got away with it due to bungling by the official bodies, and different results can obtain in different hearings....as with the Reese-Shapiro case 50 years ago.

It isn't that I trust the formal process implicitly: it is that I have a very strong dislike for the rush to judgement embodied in the informal process.

Quote

In my view, it hasn't failed terribly in catching cheaters. But I also don't think the public process we had with F-S is any more likely to lead to wrong "convictions" than the process in proper committees. I mean, if any of the terrible things Kit Woolsey wrote (in your view) would be material to the result of his analysis, then there would be a lot of complaints about it in the BW comments. I find it much more likely that a faulty analysis would prevail in an ACBL committee than on BW. But since it "holds up to cross" it must have been true.

Since what holds up to cross?

If I could have 60-120 mins of live face to face with Kit where he had to answer my questions, and had to answer responsively, and then I had the right to call a real statistician, as in any one of several who have been critical of Woolsey's methods (but, as with me, never his intent or motive), and had an audience of bridge players willing to put aside their biases, I think I could make a pretty good case that his analysis simply doesn't 'hold up to cross'.

I suspect, from your post, that you have no idea what a real cross-examination is like. I am not talking about the scripted nonsense you see on television or the movies. I am not talking about any media interviews you have seen. I am talking about the work that people like me do for a living. Trust me, if you take the stand to defend work that is actually flawed, I don't care how much better you think you know your subject than does the lawyer...if the lawyer is good, you'll be destroyed if you don't admit the flaws.

On the other hand, if your analysis is sound, then the best lawyer in the world can't make it unsound, no matter what public perception may be about the ability of lawyers to 'twist' things. I don't know what you do for a living, but if it is the kind of thing they make movies or television shows about, you may have some idea of just how 'realistic' media portrayal of lawyers really is....it isn't

Nowhere has Kit or his defenders ever addressed the criticisms I and others have raised. Kit has actually either backed down or 'clarified' what he now says he meant....he now says that he doesn't suggest that he or anyone else posting on BW has 'proven' that FS cheated. Wtf? Thousands of posts, most of whom are falling other themselves praising the detective work and calling on banishment of FS for proven cheating and now the leader of the pack says....well....don't read too much into my posts...I am not saying that I or anyone else can prove that these guys are cheats?

So just exactly what has stood up to 'cross'? To me, having all kinds of people uncritically accepting the rush to judgement isn't cross...it is an abandonment of critical thinking in favour of mob thinking and it is regrettable in the extreme.

Since when do we judge or assess the validity of criticism by the popularity of the posts? Especially when not one....not one....addresses the substance of the criticism. Who, exactly, commented on the abuse of the spade signal issue on the videos that Kit analyzed? Who has defended his use of a negative or neutral result as confirmation of his desired result? So forgive me if I am nota fervent supporter of the work of someone who appointed himself police investigator, expert witness, prosecution and then judge and jury....only, when faced with valid criticism to which he has no answer, to claim that he has been misunderstood...he never claimed, he now says, to have proof of cheating.

And you wonder why I prefer a formal process, flawed as it may well end up being? You prefer the lynch mob? Good for you. I hope you never fall victim to it.

[mgoetze]

MrAce, on 2015-September-13, 16:24, said:

It means EXACTLY 4 when it is followed by another poster who replied "Now less than 4" You are entitled to believe these numbers were just given as a joke and/or just came out of mouth coincidentally, then believe so..

I will not comment for the rest of your post since it is hard to do it without upsetting you. Seems like you are so out of touch with understanding what is written by Geoff or me or anyone and keep on getting impressions that are not there.

Dude WTF... go back and read the context again. Jeff says he doesn't want to give a number. Someone asks him, "can you at least give a range? Less than 10, less than 5?" Jeff chooses "less than 5". No way in hell that means "exactly 4", sorry.

[Hanoi5]

So the next pair is from a team Franck Multon is in? Didn't the other two pairs from that team have 'problems' with bridge law before? Helgemo was involved in making up results from a match (along with at least 7 others I believe) in the first country he represented (actually, I always found it funny how after being banned from his federation he went somewhere else). Fantunes has always been a weird system which many people smell badly; and they defended a hand in a recent (last year?) Italian tournament which led their opponents to go to a higher authority which apparently questioned them and their answer was not very... logical (even Versace said it was a weird defense).

But these pairs have been around longer than F-S. What damage would they have inflicted on the game if any of them were found guilty? What damage can be inflicted upon the game if nothing is done soon? Why hasn't the WBF launched a Media Campaign and taken some action to respond to all of this?

Who are the other two? It's less than two weeks to Chennai...

[hrothgar]

Hanoi5, on 2015-September-13, 19:14, said:

So the next pair is from a team Franck Multon is in? Didn't the other two pairs from that team have 'problems' with bridge law before? Helgemo was involved in making up results from a match (along with at least 7 others I believe) in the first country he represented (actually, I always found it funny how after being banned from his federation he went somewhere else).

I would be surprised to see allegations raised about Helgemo and Helness.

[Hanoi5]

hrothgar, on 2015-September-13, 19:50, said:

I would be surprised to see allegations raised about Helgemo and Helness.

So it is the other one! And, are these allegations new? Why did Zimmerman go to such lengths to form this team if one of the pairs was tainted? Or maybe ALL pairs are tainted?

[mgoetze]

OK guys here it is:
http://bridgewinners...-fantoni-nunes/