[mgoetze]

Now we finally know why Slawinski leads are so powerful.

[MickyB]

Explains a lot, I found them to be unplayable vs no-trumps, you need an attitude signal...

[mikeh]

I think we can take the discussion about Fantunes as very likely to be reliable, if only because of the public identification of those experts who stand behind it. Several of them have a lot to lose if they are mistaken. More importantly, from my perspective as someone very critical about the process in play re FS, the analysis seems to have been done in a far more careful manner, with source data identified and readily accessible.

As a good friend of mine just said, answering my call (I didn't think he'd know yet) the population of Monaco is about to shrink by 2.

[benlessard]

I was always a bit puzzled by F-N extraordinary overall results.

For sure their card play is top notch, but their bidding was not top notch WC level in my book. Ive simply assumed that they were the best defenders in the world and were a part of an overall stronger team.

[MrAce]

mgoetze, on 2015-September-13, 19:03, said:

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.

LOL

[MickyB]

benlessard, on 2015-September-13, 22:29, said:

Ive simply assumed that they were the best defenders in the world

They were

[MickyB]

And that's despite one of them being technically pretty weak - sound familiar?

[WesleyC]

The evidence against Fantoni/Nunes certainly looks damning.

The thing that amazes me the most, is that despite the fact that F/N have raised suspicion among world class circles for years, they were able to cheat for a decade using such a trivial method.

If they had taken even the most basic steps to encode their signals (such as reversing them on an arbitrarily defined sub-set of the boards), would they have ever been 'proved' guilty?

Near the top of this thread, JLall questioned whether fully decoding the method used to cheat should be required as proof of cheating, and I think he was spot on. The next wave of bridge cheaters will use more sophisticated and subtle methods, that are harder or even impossible to detect. Going forward, I think we have to accept that a long and statistically significant history of illogical but successful actions DOES constitute sufficient proof of cheating.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on 2015-September-13, 17:29, said:

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



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.



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.

LOL. Just because you still haven't understood that "F-S give no signal exactly on the hands where you would expect them to give no signal" is strengthening the case that they cheat doesn't mean it is wrong.

Meanwhile, do you really think Greg Lawler "uncritically accepted the rush to judgement"? I promise you, if the sets Kit analyzed wouldn't clearly corroborate F-S' cheating, he would have complained in the comments.

[gwnn]

When I was a kid, we used to play a card game in which you needed to get four cards of the same rank and when you were done, you had to shout something (kems? cams? I never needed to write it down). The more advanced version had you playing in pairs and your partner needing to announce it. Your opponents could foil your plan by saying "contracams" and get double the points. However, it was so trivial to avoid this contracams rule by using some primitive rule like "I'm gonna say a bunch of numbers out loud, if I say twin primes, it means I'm finished" - and this was some 10-year olds (ok slightly mathematically inclined but still). I'm seriously disappointed with the low level of complexity of these methods. I understand that simple methods are easier to implement, follow, and interpret, but still. Just add some modulo 4 stuff you know? Imagine what the case against F/S would look like.

edit: AHA! kemps or camps!

[Trinidad]

gwnn, on 2015-September-14, 01:50, said:

I'm seriously disappointed with the low level of complexity of these methods. I understand that simple methods are easier to implement, follow, and interpret, but still.

I feel the same. Bridge bidding is a game of coding messages (with the opponents knowing the code). If you would have to pick someone in the world come up with a good code for cheating, a bridge champion would be at the top of your list.

If I were a cheater I would be thoroughly embarrassed to be caught using a plain straight unencrypted code such as "1 cough is clubs", "board in the middle is diamonds" or "vertical means honor or singleton".

I mean in WWII, the resistance had more advanced encrypting with messages like "the cow brings home the milk today" and "the roses will be send tonight".

gwnn, on 2015-September-14, 01:50, said:

Imagine what the case against F/S would look like.

However, for the cheating to be detected it is not necessary to crack the code.

The code is the smoking gun. But you don't need a smoking gun to convict someone for murder. And you don't need the cheating mechanism to conclude that someone is cheating.

Rik

[gwnn]

Trinidad, on 2015-September-14, 02:45, said:

The code is the smoking gun. But you don't need a smoking gun to convict someone for murder. And you don't need the cheating mechanism to conclude that someone is cheating.

No, but it helps (a lot). The case would look much weaker. I don't know why I need to point it out but it seems like everyone makes a lot of effort pointing out obvious stuff so why not join in.

[WesleyC]

Trinidad, on 2015-September-14, 02:45, said:

The code is the smoking gun. But you don't need a smoking gun to convict someone for murder. And you don't need the cheating mechanism to conclude that someone is cheating.

Except that currently to expose a pair cheating at bridge, you DO need the gun, also the gun licence and preferably a video of the shooting! Publicly accusing a pair of cheating, based on any amount of indirect evidence is considered inappropriate.

Even when a pair is caught red handed, without the gun there is no proof of UI.

[Zelandakh]

As hrothgar wrote after the Doctors incident, we haven't found the clever cheats yet. It seems obvious to me to encode cheat signals based on board number or vulnerability and I suspect there are some pairs doing something along those lines. If you also take the trouble to avoid obviously anti-percentage actions you are practically untraceable in the game at present. Hopefully some additional measures can be brought in to clean things up a little. An electronic environment with partners in separate rooms would be one such idea. The social element is certainly relevant for club bridge but at WC level I think we should be putting the sport above such considerations.

[Fluffy]

gwnn, on 2015-September-14, 01:50, said:

When I was a kid, we used to play a card game in which you needed to get four cards of the same rank and when you were done, you had to shout something (kems? cams? I never needed to write it down). The more advanced version had you playing in pairs and your partner needing to announce it. Your opponents could foil your plan by saying "contracams" and get double the points. However, it was so trivial to avoid this contracams rule by using some primitive rule like "I'm gonna say a bunch of numbers out loud, if I say twin primes, it means I'm finished" - and this was some 10-year olds (ok slightly mathematically inclined but still). I'm seriously disappointed with the low level of complexity of these methods. I understand that simple methods are easier to implement, follow, and interpret, but still. Just add some modulo 4 stuff you know? Imagine what the case against F/S would look like.

edit: AHA! kemps or camps!

We called it "Cuadrado" (Squeare) here, but as we grow up it was so easy to count cards and notice when someone got 4 of a kind without any signal unless he started with a pair in hand.

[Fluffy]

Multon's allegations against Boye for playing with cheats on his team for long without saying a word are now epic.

[gwnn]

Fluffy, on 2015-September-14, 04:17, said:

We called it "Cuadrado" (Squeare) here, but as we grow up it was so easy to count cards and notice when someone got 4 of a kind without any signal unless he started with a pair in hand.

That's avoided by exchanging cards a lot.

[cherdano]

mikeh, on 2015-September-13, 17:29, said:

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.

I think it's worth pointing out once more how ridiculous this statement is (leaving aside the fact that what I know about cross-examination - which is very little - is from lawyers posting about it, and from reading excerpts of a few trial transcripts. I have literally never seen cross-examination on TV or in a movie).

The following types of "forensic science" has held up on cross-examination for years or decades, even though in retrospect much of it is completely flawed and unrealiable:

• Gunshot residue analysis
  
• Arson "science"
  
• location tracking via cell-phone pings
  
• microscopic hair analysis

And this only lists methods that were at some point used and accepted widely.

I think the one thing Mike's posts prove is that if you have to hire a lawyer, you never want to hire one who is in some way emotionally invested into the case.

[rhm]

Zelandakh, on 2015-September-14, 03:37, said:

As hrothgar wrote after the Doctors incident, we haven't found the clever cheats yet. It seems obvious to me to encode cheat signals based on board number or vulnerability and I suspect there are some pairs doing something along those lines. If you also take the trouble to avoid obviously anti-percentage actions you are practically untraceable in the game at present.

Apparently such statements do not need to be accompanied by any sort of evidence.
I am old fashioned enough to believe that those who make such claims have to substantiate them, not the ones who doubt them.
Frankly I am tired of this paranoia.
You can design all sorts of clever illegal signals.
But in the end you must be able to apply and decipher them correctly at the table to get any "benefit" from them.
This practical aspect reduces the possibility for designing complex clever codes.
Humans are not computers.

Quote

Hopefully some additional measures can be brought in to clean things up a little. An electronic environment with partners in separate rooms would be one such idea. The social element is certainly relevant for club bridge but at WC level I think we should be putting the sport above such considerations.

I am against putting each player of a Bridge session in a different room behind a terminal, hopefully with a human monitor and video cameras behind each player.
Big brother is watching you.
Even if I qualified I doubt I would go under those conditions to a big event.
Some cures are simply worse than the illness.

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

Wait, in the old times "Watch out for pickpockets in Rio de Janeiro" had to be accompanied by solid proof?