[Aberlour10]

[I took a look at the DBV site, there is actually only a short statement of the President.

One sentence about the verdict....and he complains (?) that the Commission did not use both DBV statements in process of reaching the verdict.

Here both DBV statements from March 13th and 20th>>>




13th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4155



20th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4156

[cherdano]

gnasher, on 2014-March-30, 16:42, said:

I don't really know, but I think probably very few top pairs are using illegal communication.

Most people are honest, or at least want to have a reputation for honesty.

For a player who does want to gain illegally, the easiest ways to do it are by misusing traditional UI, and by not disclosing your methods properly.

In my view the most easily abused UI is about doubletons versus singletons. (Slow spot card lead -> can't be a singleton.)
My guesses are:

• The percentage of top players who would abuse this type of UI is significant.
  
• The percentage of top players who would avoid leading a doubleton quickly (so as not to mislead partner guilty of the previous point) is not negligible.

[the hog]

Oof Arted, on 2014-March-30, 12:23, said:

Wayne are you really suggesting that as the affair was between a team from the USA and a Team from Germany that Judges from the USA should not be used ???

As the complaint which was acted upon was from the USA team, you are quite correct - a US judge should not have been used.How much greater validity and impact would it have had had the proceedings been held in Europe and had none of the judges been from the US, but the tribunal had reached the same decision?

[mike777]

To be fair we are not told of the WBF process that lead to the where and who were appointed.

For all we know Non America may not have been an option.

In the past money or the lack of money has been a huge issue for the WBF.

For many years it received massive aid from just one guy.

[Cascade]

Aberlour10, on 2014-March-30, 17:45, said:

[I took a look at the DBV site, there is actually only a short statement of the President.

One sentence about the verdict....and he complains (?) that the Commission did not use both DBV statements in process of reaching the verdict.

Here both DBV statements from March 13th and 20th>>>




13th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4155



20th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4156

These paint a very different picture.

[nige1]

ArtK78, on 2014-March-30, 17:18, said:

In my opinion, if anyone has a problem with the procedure followed by the WBF in this case, then almost nothing will meet his or her standards.

Aberlour10, on 2014-March-30, 17:45, said:

[I took a look at the DBV site, there is actually only a short statement of the President. One sentence about the verdict....and he complains (?) that the Commission did not use both DBV statements in process of reaching the verdict. Here both DBV statements from March 13th and 20th>>>
13th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4155
20th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4156

Did the commission receive the 2nd DBV letter in time to consider any of its rebuttal evidence or argument for the defence? The commission report doesn't refer to the letter or its contenfs. The DBV also complain that they received type-written transcripts rather than photocopies of the original evidence, that several items of evidence were missing, and that they couldn't access much of the video evidence.

[mrdct]

Aberlour10, on 2014-March-30, 17:45, said:

[I took a look at the DBV site, there is actually only a short statement of the President.

One sentence about the verdict....and he complains (?) that the Commission did not use both DBV statements in process of reaching the verdict.

Here both DBV statements from March 13th and 20th>>>




13th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4155



20th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4156

There seems to be quite a material discrepancy between the final WBF report and the statements made by DVB as to whether or not Elinescu-Wladow denied the allegations. One can only presume that the DVB statements of 13/3 and 20/3 never made it into the hands of the tribunal which is worrying from a procedural fairness point of view.

In matters of justice, perceived conflicts of interest are probably even more important than actual conflicts of interest. It was highly sub-optimal to hold the hearing in the USA and a poor decision to have anyone from Zone 1 or 2 on the panel. The panel should've been chaired and comprised of people completely free of any suggestion of bias and the hearing should've been held at a time and place convenient for all parties.

I will bravely predict that the inevitable appeal will not have any Americans on the adjudicating panel.

[nige1]

deleted

[Cascade]

mrdct, on 2014-March-30, 19:59, said:

In matters of justice, perceived conflicts of interest are probably even more important than actual conflicts of interest.

Indeed. Perceived bias is more important because they are much more common since they are much easier to establish. Even when there is a real bias or the suspicion of a real bias then it is often easier to simply claim a perceived bias.

[cherdano]

Cascade, on 2014-March-30, 21:56, said:

Indeed. Perceived bias is more important because they are much more common since they are much easier to establish. Even when there is a real bias or the suspicion of a real bias then it is often easier to simply claim a perceived bias.

Things are a little bit different when everyone can check enough of the evidence by themselves.

https://www.youtube....vebridgewebcam1

[Antrax]

awm, on 2014-March-30, 11:17, said:

The thing that always bothers me in these cases is wondering how prevalent cheating is at the upper echelons. Every time a pair gets caught, it seems they have been under suspicion for years and years. Often the pairs that get caught are doing something pretty blatant and honestly kind of dumb.

helene_t, on 2014-March-30, 12:10, said:

I don't think cheating is that common. If I were cheating, the fear of getting caught would make me so nervous that I wouldn't be able to play. I think it takes a psychopath to cheat effectively

I have some experience with investigating similar situations. There are two categories of cheaters. The common one is the crime of opportunity. You "forgot how the play went", you didn't understand the claim wasn't valid, you revoke and try to conceal it. Those are people whose moral judgment is clouded briefly, it's usually a relatively isolated incident, and even when not caught it eats at them.

The other type are the premeditated, habitual cheaters. Those tend to feel invincible after a while, they feel self-righteous about their cheating (often deciding everybody else is doing it and they're just leveling the playing field) and they always make increasingly dumb mistakes until they're caught. There's something about getting away with it that makes people believe they're smarter than everybody else, and that causes them to gradually become more blatant. Maybe the cognitive dissonance erodes at their belief there's anything to conceal, maybe there's an element of rush to it that disappears if you don't really risk capture, I don't know for sure.

The point is, you may think only the dumb ones get caught, but it's more accurate to say that cheating makes you stupid after a while.

[aguahombre]

It seems forum posters here have spent a lot more effort on the behalf of the perpetrators than the perpetrators have. And, they don't even like them.

[the hog]

aguahombre, on 2014-March-30, 22:18, said:

It seems forum posters here have spent a lot more effort on the behalf of the perpetrators than the perpetrators have. And, they don't even like them.

No AGH, I just get peed off when players automatically condemn others without knowing all the facts. I don't know the facts either, but my attitude is that the hearing was certainly suspect in some areas.

[mrdct]

aguahombre, on 2014-March-30, 22:18, said:

It seems forum posters here have spent a lot more effort on the behalf of the perpetrators than the perpetrators have. And, they don't even like them.

I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but I haven't seen anything in this thread which is supportive of the perpetrators; just a bunch of quite sensible posts supportive of procedural fairness and natural justice.

Trials in absentia are inherently distasteful and when they're tainted by completely avoidable perceived conflicts of interest and the apparent exclusion of statements and evidence in support of the accused, it is only fair to cry foul.

I have little doubt that the "perpetrators" are guilty, and indeed a***holes, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given a proper opportunity to defend themselves.

[paulg]

Appearances are very important and the WBF looks to have been naive to hold the hearing in Dallas. Especially when the European Bridge League publishes a photo of its Executive Council meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland on 28 March, a traditional neutral venue. David Harris attended both events.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2014-March-30, 19:34, said:

The DBV also complain that they received type-written transcripts rather than photocopies of the original evidence, that several items of evidence were missing, and that they couldn't access much of the video evidence.

I don't fully understand what the DBV means with type-written transcripts. I think they are referring to the Excel overview that was compiled by Compton.

I think the Excel overview is helpful, but it is not worth much without the original evidence that it was based on.

But, as Cherdano pointed out, anybody can watch the whole video on Youtube.

Rik

[Trinidad]

Like many others I also have somewhat of a problem with the procedure. This is not the fact that there was an American on the panel. The WBF had asked the BDV whether they had a problem with that and they didn't object to that within the time frame that was given.

I don't have that much of a problem with the location either. The bridge world meets about 4 times per year: during the world championships and the 3 NABCs. It is normal to have these kind of procedures during these events. I have no real objection to attending through a video link either. We are living in the 21st century. When it is accepted that defendants in criminal courts can attend their cases using video links (to reduce the risk for the escape of the defendant during transport to and from the court), it should certainly be acceptable that a commission of a bridge federation holds its sessions with the help of a video link.

But I do think that a few alternative time slots should have been offered, and perhaps even the next time the bridge world would meet should have been considered. Now, there is the impression that this needed to be handled in a hurry, rather than that extreme care was taken. Given that the investigation seems to have been performed carefully, it deserved a careful follow-up in the commission procedure. In these cases, it is better to have a proper decision later than a hurried decision sooner.

Rik

[rhm]

cherdano, on 2014-March-30, 09:37, said:

My point is this: to anybody with open eyes it was obvious that they had highly questionable ethics. So while their teammates could not know they were playing with cheaters, they did knowingly choose teammates who bend the rules of full disclosure, etc.

One of their teammates in Bali was the current president of the DBV.
I have my doubts he would have played with them, if he knew about those allegations.

Rainer Herrmann

[Trinidad]

rhm, on 2014-March-31, 02:44, said:

One of their teammates in Bali was the current president of the DBV.
I have my doubts he would have played with them, if he knew about those allegations.

Rainer Herrmann

E-W have been in front of AC's many times and it is highly likely that their "flexibility" when it comes to full disclosure is on top of the list of reasons why they were there. The "miracles" that partner alwas has the right hand when they "take a view" are also in close contention (but miracles are not against the bridge laws). (See e.g. this humorous story on Fantoni's website, particularly board 13 and 24 are "entertaining". Note that the whole story is written (in 2008) in such a way that Fantoni clearly considers it a public secret that there is something fishy about E-W. But it was impossible to convict them because they "took a view", miss-sorted their cards, didn't see the auction, or whatever.)

If Cherdano knows that, and I know that (and I am not even German), and probably a few other BBF posters know that, then there are two possibilities:
Either their teammates know it too
Or they are simply not as interested in E-W stories as Cherdano and I are

So, I could well imagine that E-W's team mates didn't know, because they never read writeups of ACs or stories about E-W. But you cannot seriously suggest that this information was not out there.

Rik

[Oof Arted]

nige1, on 2014-March-30, 16:33, said:

It's a question of appearances. Whenever judges of such allegations are of the same nationality as the suspects or the accusers, in some eyes, justice is compromised. For example…

e.g. The WBF referred Reese and Schapiro to be dealt with by the (British) BBL but after the scrupulously thorough Foster-Bourne Enquiry exonerated them, the WBF (with Americans -- the same nationality as their accusers) repudiated the verdict.

e.g. When the WBF referred the Burgay scandal to the Italian Bridge Federation, it suspended the accuser and lost the vital tapes.

There may be no national bias in such cases but, IMO, for justice to be seen to be done, judges should not belong to the same nation or national organisation as accusers or accused.

Nigel I fully agree with this and Cascades reasoning .

But as it is an 'International' Bridge Copmetition then it may have been better to ensure 1 Judge from each Country concerned was on the Panel with the Majority of the Judges from otner NBO's