[the hog]

 Trinidad, on 2014-March-31, 05:44, said:

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

Interesting. I read the Fantoni write ups today and did not interpret them that way at all. I guess some people just see what they want to see and what reinforces their own prejudices.

[helene_t]

Yeah, if Fantoni meant to accuse E-W of cheating he is doing so in a rather subtle way. I tried to google a bit I can't really find anything about the rumours. This one comes closest:

Quote

no one really knows what Wladow-Elinescu play, and there were more.

This needs a correction: Only Wladow (and possibly Reps) knows what Wladow-Elinescu play. Thomas Dehn

Elinescu doesn't know? Ed Reppert

They are playing Wladow's homegrown system. Elinescu's expectations of what Wladow has quite frequently are not too close to what Wladow actually has. OTOH, if Elinescu does not have what Wladow thinks he showed, then Wladow will claim that Elinescu forgot their system. Thomas Dehn

[ArtK78]

I don't know if anyone posted this on this thread - I have chosen not to search for it.

This was posted on Bridgewinners. Hopefully no one has any problem that I am copying it here.


Report and Ruling of the Hearing of the WBF Disciplinary Commision

by Sriram Narasimhan March 28 Report and Ruling of the Hearing of the WBF Disciplinary Commision held on 21st and 22nd March at Sheraton Hotel in Dallas, Texas can be seen at this link https://docs.google....QmVXNXc/preview

[keeper2]

I agree that appearance are important, including over location, but it seems the WBF's room for manoeuvre may have been limited in choosing the personnel of the Commission.

The WBF Disciplinary Code states that: “If the case arises, a Disciplinary Commission, “the Commission” appointed by the WBF President, rules on the cases of reprehensible conduct referred to the WBF. The Commission consists of three people selected by the President from a group of five approved by the Executive Council and including at least two members of the EC. The Commission includes at least one member of the Executive Council, who acts as Chairman of the Commission.”

The “Disciplinary Committee” listed on the WBF website consists of five names and it would seem that typically these five names would be those from whom the Commission is chosen. The five on the Disciplinary Committee are the three members that served on the Commission, the prosecutor,and……Ulrich Wenning, President of the DBV and teammate of the accused in the event in question.

[mike777]

It is important to note that the WBF has shown limited, very limited resources over the decades. Posters seem either unaware or shocked by this simple fact.

Bias is shown in every case, every one. I recommend people go back and define and measure bias, it is always there.


It is up to the judge and jury, hopefully not the same person, to weigh.

In any event in this case posters only talk about how bias affected this case in theory, not in practice, at this point.

Again bias is always with humans.
------------

Also many posters get the basic facts wrong.

It is the WBF who is the formal accuser,it is the WBF who is the prosecutor, Americans and others are witnesses.
Posters confuse those who report a crime as the formal accuser.

[rhm]

 mike777, on 2014-March-31, 21:24, said:

Bias is shown in every case, every one. I recommend people go back and define and measure bias, it is always there.

Do you want to imply we should not care about bias, because it will always be there???

 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.

My view is:

Cheating allegations are serious and need to be prosecuted.
However, if you convict somebody of cheating and ban him possibly for life, the consequences are profound, not least to the social reputation of the persons involved.
This is particularly true in the internet age, where nothing gets forgotten.
So the standard should be similar to prosecution of criminal offences. Trials in absentia are dubious at best.
Now I know the WBF can not force the accused to participate before taking a verdict, but they can make it easy or difficult for the accused to participate.
The WBF could appoint somebody acting as a defense council. Many cases sound very convincing until you hear the other side.
Bias may always be there, but you can try to minimise it and you can try to avoid any pretense of it or you can have a high-handed attitude.
This will have a profound impact on the credibility of your verdict.

Note, I am not arguing in favour of Wladow-Elinescu.
I know they do not have many fans and not without reasons.
But I believe charges have to be judged irrespective of the persons concerned and a "trial" leading to such a verdict should be fair.
I understand that resources are limited. They always are.

Rainer Herrmann

[the hog]

 rhm, on 2014-April-01, 03:56, said:

Do you want to imply we should not care about bias, because it will always be there???


My view is:

Cheating allegations are serious and need to be prosecuted.
However, if you convict somebody of cheating and ban him possibly for life, the consequences are profound, not least to the social reputation of the persons involved.
This is particularly true in the internet age, where nothing gets forgotten.
So the standard should be similar to prosecution of criminal offences. Trials in absentia are dubious at best.
Now I know the WBF can not force the accused to participate before taking a verdict, but they can make it easy or difficult for the accused to participate.
The WBF could appoint somebody acting as a defense council. Many cases sound very convincing until you hear the other side.
Bias may always be there, but you can try to minimise it and you can try to avoid any pretense of it or you can have a high-handed attitude.
This will have a profound impact on the credibility of your verdict.

Note, I am not arguing in favour of Wladow-Elinescu.
I know they do not have many fans and not without reasons.
But I believe charges have to be judged irrespective of the persons concerned and a "trial" leading to such a verdict should be fair.
I understand that resources are limited. They always are.

Rainer Herrmann

Ich gatuliere. Well said, Rainer. This is an an excellent post.

[cherdano]

The procedures of the trial should follow the WBF procedural rules for such a trial.
Not following established procedural rules would create the impression of bias.

I don't think WBF procedural rules should state that the defendants can request a trial on their own continent, or should state that the defendants can request the date of a trial to be moved. I imagine meetings of the WBF Disciplinary Commission are difficult enough to arrange already.

As for the credibility of the verdict: just watch the videos.

[billw55]

I am new to this well-developed thread.

I think the punishment is too light. IMO it is trivially obvious that both players should be banned for life as individuals, as well as a partnership.

[PhilKing]

This brings back fond memories from Beijing in 2008 when we played them in the Rosenblum semi-finals. It's fair to say we were on their case from the start - in fact I approached the TDs with a few concerns and was told that they were being closely watched even then. They made one unusual lead early on (after 1NT p p p, they led a club rather than a diamond from ♠AQJ4 ♥AT72 ♦952 ♣73, and obviously partner held good clubs) but it made no difference.

Somewhat inhibited, they played with little of their usual flair, even before the infamous last set (where they cracked and gave up after 8 boards). This board caught my eye, and proves that things can go wrong even in the most well-oiled partnerships (Wladow N, Elinescu S).

---

-1100 did not compare well with -100 in 5♦

[billw55]

 PhilKing, on 2014-April-01, 07:50, said:

-1100 did not compare well with -100 in 5♦

I love it when junk overcalls get what they deserve. Thanks for sharing

[Cascade]

 cherdano, on 2014-April-01, 07:00, said:

The procedures of the trial should follow the WBF procedural rules for such a trial.
Not following established procedural rules would create the impression of bias.

I don't think WBF procedural rules should state that the defendants can request a trial on their own continent, or should state that the defendants can request the date of a trial to be moved. I imagine meetings of the WBF Disciplinary Commission are difficult enough to arrange already.

As for the credibility of the verdict: just watch the videos.

If natural justice is a principle that is to be upheld by any trial then

1. Holding the hearing at a distant location affects the right of the defendant to be heard;

2. It is normal procedure for a party to the hearing to be able to request a postponement;

3. A defendant has a right to adequate time to prepare a case, not allowing a postponement may impact on that.

In this case, as far as I can tell, the Germans are claiming that they did not receive all of the evidence as requested. If accurate this would be a reasonable grounds to request a postponement.

It is also possible that the rules are inherently biased. For me a good procedure would involve making it easy rather than difficult for the defendants to be heard, which might necessitate having the hearing at close proximity to the defendants.

When I watched the videos, although I have not watched them all, sure there was some possibly irregular coughing. However without the videos being linked to board numbers it is impossible to verify that the coughs were encoded. Nevertheless, in some places the pattern of coughing departed from my understanding of the alleged pattern - coughs occurred near the end of the auction; no coughs when partner was on lead.

[hrothgar]

 Cascade, on 2014-April-01, 09:37, said:

If natural justice is a principle that is to be upheld by any trial then

1. Holding the hearing at a distant location affects the right of the defendant to be heard;

2. It is normal procedure for a party to the hearing to be able to request a postponement;

3. A defendant has a right to adequate time to prepare a case, not allowing a postponement may impact on that.

In this case, as far as I can tell, the Germans are claiming that they did not receive all of the evidence as requested. If accurate this would be a reasonable grounds to request a postponement.

It is also possible that the rules are inherently biased. For me a good procedure would involve making it easy rather than difficult for the defendants to be heard, which might necessitate having the hearing at close proximity to the defendants.

In an ideal world, it might be better if

1. The WBF had contacted W+E and the DBV informing them of the charges against W+E and indicating that any team containing W+E would not be allowed to participate in WBF events until the situation was resolved.

2. Indicating that the WBF planned to adjudicate the case in Dallas

3. Indicating that W+E could request a one time exception to postpone the event from Dallas to the next regularly scheduled WBF meeting or, alternatively, post a bond covering WBF expenses for conducting an "exceptional" meeting. (Said bond being forfeit in the eventuality that W+E were found guilty)

This seems like a reasonable compromise.

[MrAce]

 Cascade, on 2014-April-01, 09:37, said:

s.

When I watched the videos, although I have not watched them all, sure there was some possibly irregular coughing. However without the videos being linked to board numbers it is impossible to verify that the coughs were encoded. Nevertheless, in some places the pattern of coughing departed from my understanding of the alleged pattern - coughs occurred near the end of the auction; no coughs when partner was on lead.

http://www.worldbrid...12887&qphase=FF



This video features Segment 5, hands from 11 to 16:


B-11
Wladow 5x (4243 16 hcp, after strong 1♣ opening)
Wladow 4x (lead spade, spade 5 was led, any minor lead would let the game made from Qxx xxx xxx xxxx

B-12

Elinescu 2x = short diamonds (he held 3406)
Wladow 4x =short spades (held 1453)

B-14

No cough both hands were balanced

B-15

No cough both hands were balanced

B-16

Wladow 1x = short clubs, 6160

[cherdano]

 Cascade, on 2014-April-01, 09:37, said:

When I watched the videos, although I have not watched them all, sure there was some possibly irregular coughing. However without the videos being linked to board numbers it is impossible to verify that the coughs were encoded. Nevertheless, in some places the pattern of coughing departed from my understanding of the alleged pattern - coughs occurred near the end of the auction; no coughs when partner was on lead.

It wasn't difficult to match the videos to the boards (the vugraph records were linked to earlier in this thread) - just look at who is dealer and who ends up as declarer.
Once I had the boards matched, I did not look at the hand records until after the auction started. I was always able to tell who had which shortness.

I agree that their code is probably a bit larger than the one that Wold guessed. E.g. one time Wladow made a 2♥ Michaels overcall, explained as spades + a minor. He coughed twice. I will let you guess which side suit he had.

Oh, and Elinescu's code for signaling heart shortness isn't 3 coughs. It's one cough when it's his turn to bid; than another just before he pushes the tray through.

[the hog]

 billw55, on 2014-April-01, 07:55, said:

I love it when junk overcalls get what they deserve. Thanks for sharing

Another foolish comment. The result has nothing to do with the overcall.Look at the Sth hand. Why hijack the thread with this?

[MrAce]

 PhilKing, on 2014-April-01, 07:50, said:

This brings back fond memories from Beijing in 2008 when we played them in the Rosenblum semi-finals. It's fair to say we were on their case from the start - in fact I approached the TDs with a few concerns and was told that they were being closely watched even then. They made one unusual lead early on (after 1NT p p p, they led a club rather than a diamond from ♠AQJ4 ♥AT72 ♦952 ♣73, and obviously partner held good clubs) but it made no difference.

Somewhat inhibited, they played with little of their usual flair, even before the infamous last set (where they cracked and gave up after 8 boards). This board caught my eye, and proves that things can go wrong even in the most well-oiled partnerships (Wladow N, Elinescu S).

---

-1100 did not compare well with -100 in 5♦

Well, maybe they are not as OUTLAW as we think they are, since they seem to follow THE LAW

[billw55]

 the hog, on 2014-April-01, 17:58, said:

Another foolish comment. The result has nothing to do with the overcall.Look at the Sth hand. Why hijack the thread with this?

Kiss my butt.

[the hog]

You are clearly a gormless individual with an extremely limited education. I feel sorry for you.

[barmar]

Let's stop the rude posts and stick to the subject, or I'll close this thread.