[rhm]

aguahombre, on 2014-April-20, 09:22, said:

This was addressed in the hearing report repeatedly ---items 9,16,30,31, and 32. The Chairperson answered it in email to the DBV, but did not treat the question lightly...rather continued to stress there was NO suggestion the DBV was involved in the cheating itself. It is responsible for its members via WBF Article 2, and responsible as the NBO to adhere to the findings regarding its members.

I can well understand that the people, who investigated on behalf of the WBF had to keep the cheating allegation secret until they had all the evidence together.
I understand well that the relationship of the WBF is with NBOs, not with individuals.
However, informing someone by way of indicting him seems to me a rather strange way to request cooperation.
If I want the cooperation of someone I would inform him on a confidential basis not indict him.

Rainer Herrmann

[Cascade]

cherdano, on 2014-April-20, 06:21, said:

I find the whole comparison to laws of natural justice and rights of criminal defendants ludicrous.

The reasons we need strong protections of criminal defendants is that the prosecution and the court is represented by the GOVERNMENT. This is the single most powerful institution in our society, and the one with the biggest resources. The other side is overmatched, and needs a lot of procedural protections.

In the case at hand, both the prosecution and the court consists of a bridge organization run by VOLUNTEERS. Yes, the probably get paid generous travel support etc.; but still the volunteers have little to gain and a lot to lose (exposing the WBF to law suits etc.) by finding someone guilty of cheating.

I am not sure what the laws are elsewhere but in some places (possibly most) natural justice or its equivalent is protected by law in cases of this kind.

The alternative seems some sort of vigilante justice or no or very limited rights for the accused. To me this seems a whole lot worse than any problems with natural justice.

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on 2014-April-20, 12:58, said:

I am not sure what the laws are elsewhere but in some places (possibly most) natural justice or its equivalent is protected by law in cases of this kind.

The alternative seems some sort of vigilante justice or no or very limited rights for the accused. To me this seems a whole lot worse than any problems with natural justice.

Couple quick comments:

1. If a law is being violated, than E+W have the option to avail themselves of the real world legal system.

2. I agree completely with Cherdano that its ridiculous to expect bridge organization to maintain the same set of legal standards as a nation state.

As a practical example, "Presumption of Innocence" is a standard principle in most Western legal systems, dating back to the Roman Empire.
While I am very much in favor of this when it comes to criminal law, I'm torn whether or not it should apply here.

As a practical example, E+W haven't yet exhausted their appeals.
However, I sure as hell wouldn't allow them to register for a major event until this all gets straightened out.

[inquiry]

rhm, on 2014-April-20, 00:45, said:

[SNIP A LOT OF GOOD STUFF (THE NUMBERS ADDED TO THE POINTS FOR DISCUSSSION TOO]

• Wladow had clearly alerted his 1♣ bid and it was in my opinion hard to overlook.
• Bates wanted to retract a call he had clearly made and which the rules do not allow in my opinion.
• Wladow had every right to call the director. There was also UI because of the retraction attempt.

The director decided against Wladow, probably because he did not have the video evidence at that time or because of Wladow's bad image.
This is a typical Wladow incidence. Wladow is very brisk and gets quickly emotional. I agree, he is not someone you like to play against, but his behaviour there is not clearly unethical.

I agree with the first part of each points above (Wladow DID alert his bid, Bates DID want to retract his call, Wladow DID have every right to call the director. I Also agree that UI would/could exist because of the retraction attempt whether or not the bid ended up being retracted or not.

However, I have to disagree with the second part of point one and two.

First, we can agree that #3 is absolutely correct. Wladow had 100% right to call the director.

Point one (first part): there is no argument, Wladow did "alert" the 1♣ bid by the usual short hand method of pointing at the bid on the bidding tray. I acknowledged this in my post on the video (here quoting myself, I said "Finally, Wladow (who is not vulnerable) slowly reaches for the 1♣ card at 1:12:40 and slowly moves it to the tray, with a very deliberate putting in on the tray not removing his hand until 1:12:48. With his hand just above the tray, in slow motion, you can detect that he points at the 1♣ card in rapid succession twice [ibid, CORRECTION: ACTUALLY THREE TIMES]. The time between when he removed his hand from the card and when he finished pointing at it is less than one second as he is finished pointing and the recorder time is still at 1:12:49 when he has both his hands back on his cards. ...[SNIP]... and then later "Waldo is quite animated afterwards (and from his point of view, he did wave a finger over the 1♣ bid for literally a fraction of a second, so he truly thinks he alerted the bid)."

So anyone who suggest that Wladow did not alert the bid or did not have a right to feel perhaps he was being jobbed (taken advantage of, "cheated") in the ruling would be wrong. However the second part of the point 1 I take exception too, the alert to 1♣ was in fact very easy to overlook. This is because of four reasons. 1st this was the first strong club opening of this session. Second, as noted above, it took 7 seconds to get the bid from the tray box, with three seconds of laying it on the tray itself, then the actual pointing at it (three quick jabs with the index finger with the arm not moving just the finger and hand) took less than one second (slow it down to speed 0.25 on the youtube setting). Third, there was a lot of commotion on the S/W side of the table with the complaining about board 10 to add to the confusion. Fourth, Bates was not looking at Wladow at this time, you can tell by his looking as the cards at the time the alert occurred. (I noted that someone says you can't tell if Bates was looking at when the alert occurred, but if you watch the video, you can see Bates turn his head to look towards Wladow and the tray at 1:12:38 and the turn his head back to the left (center) away from the bidding tray at 1:12:46 with the 1♣ bid on the tray still in contact with Wladow's hand. The head movement is easiest to see in the 0.25 speed setting, but he clearly is no longer looking to his right. You can also see at 1:12:54 when Wladow complains to his team captain and wave his hands around in a complaining gesture that Bates again turns to look back in that direction. )

So it seems clear to me at least, that 1) the official rules of alerting were not followed (the alert card played and acknowledged by the opponent who returns the alert card.). Ok, almost no one does that. Hayden made a point later on this same hand of throwing the alert card onto his partners bid, which I believe is the only time that happened in the match, although a few times the alert card was turned over to indicate an alert. I just note this for completeness. 2) the unofficial rule spirit was not followed this time either. The unofficial rule that virtually everyone follows is to point to the bid and give some indication the bid was alertable and get confirmation the opponent understands the bid was alertable. Watching the video it is clear that Wladow did not get any confirmation (the equivalent of the having the opponent return the blue alert card in the official policy) that he alerted the bid from Bates, who in my view did not see the rapid gesture.

So while Rainer thinks it is HARD to overlook the alert, I think exactly the opposite is true. It was extremely short duration (clearly less than a second) and his opponent had clearly turned away from him when it occurred (he held the bid on the tray for six times as long as he pointed at during his alerting). Wladow clearly missed the spirit of the official and unofficial rule by not making certain his opponent was aware of the alert.

Part two, there is no doubt Bates wanted his bid back. Why? Because from his point of view, he was not ALERTED and his bid was based on MISINFORMATION. In such cases, a player is allowed to CHANCE HIS CALL without penalty (and this can occur anytime before the end of the auction). So in fact, unlike the end of statement #2, the RULES do allow for the change of a call (WBF rule 17E).

Wladow who "thinks" he alerted believes even trying to change the call is a violation, Bates who "thinks" there was no alert believes he has every right to change his call for misinformatipn. This is why a director should be called, in fact, they both should call the director.

To determine which side is right, is the job of the director who will then make a ruling. The director came and discovered the facts: Wladow says he alerted the bid, Bates claim he did not "see it" and said something like I must have been looking at may hand (I couldn makeout the reason why he didn't see it time around 1:14:50. These seem the correct initial facts, and I believe the director believed that Wladow alerted and believed the Bates did not see the alert. Next the director tried to determine how Wladow alerted his bid. Around 1:15:30 Wladow says he alerted 1♣, Bates says clearly "I didn't see it", to which Wladow responds "You should have", The director ask Wladow how he alerted, in response he grabs the blue alert card, points it towards Bates and says "alert". Perhaps this was just pointing out to the director he did alert (he has said he did many times prior, the blue card was first time in response to direct question of how). AT 1:16:15 while talking off camera captain, Wladow again flashes the blue alert card (the director was talking to Bates at that time, so this was just between the captain and Wladow). At 1:16:49 the director as Wladow "are you sure you alerted with that" as he (the director indicated the blue alert card). Wladow turns up the blue card again, I don't think he said anything.

At 11:59:57 the director seems to rule misinformation and allows Bates to change his bid from DBL to pass. Nowhere did the director rule that Wladow lied (unless he actually said he used the blue card, everyone, even the director knew he did not use the blue card because no one was using the blue card the entire match). I think the director was being pedantic here, he was going to believe Bates didn't see the alert and that Wladow did alert all along. The question he wanted to answered, but didn't ask, was "did Bates seem to acknowledge your alert?". He couldn't do that because the WBF rules say how an alert is suppose to be made, and he was going to rule against Wladow if he didn't alert with the Blue card. Rainer said "The director decided against Wladow, probably because he did not have the video evidence at that time or because of Wladow's bad image." This had nothing to do with Wladow being mis-like or rude or having a bad reputation, or video evidence. The director's hands were tied by the rules requiring the responsibility ON THE ALERTER to make sure his opponent see's the alert.

In another posted someone suggested that the alert came while Bates was looking away, rhm responded by saying "I could not see Bates looking in a different direction.". I suggest you go back and look (slow the video down). The camera angle is not good for seeing where Bates is looking, but you can observe slight head turns when he is looking towards Wladow and away from him in the 15 or seconds centered around the alert. He was clearly looking away when the alert was made (I gave the times earlier). The point of where he was looking is a red herring however, because of the rules the ruling was always going in Bates favor here.

Finally, I never said anything about the exchange was unethical, just unpleasant. One can call the director, states ones views, without all the dramatics, hand waving, etc. There might have been an implied unethical where I question what he was saying with waving the blue card around, but I did say in my post... "clearly he did not use the blue card when he made the bid if that is what he is trying to say". Suggesting I didn't know what he was saying when he used the blue card for the director. I certain accept Rainer's explanation.

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on 2014-April-20, 13:20, said:

Couple quick comments:

1. If a law is being violated, than E+W have the option to avail themselves of the real world legal system.

2. I agree completely with Cherdano that its ridiculous to expect bridge organization to maintain the same set of legal standards as a nation state.

As a practical example, "Presumption of Innocence" is a standard principle in most Western legal systems, dating back to the Roman Empire.
While I am very much in favor of this when it comes to criminal law, I'm torn whether or not it should apply here.

As a practical example, E+W haven't yet exhausted their appeals.
However, I sure as hell wouldn't allow them to register for a major event until this all gets straightened out.

The principles of natural justice that apply to tribunals are not the same as the laws the determine procedures in a court of law. For example typically there are different standards of proof and even evidence. Nevertheless the accused are entitled to some standards of fairness otherwise we end up with ludicrous propositions like the one Ron constructed.

In new zealand the bill of rights guarantees people natural justice. I would be very surprised if there were not similar legislation or rules in many or most countries around the world.

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on 2014-April-20, 14:38, said:

The principles of natural justice that apply to tribunals are not the same as the laws the determine procedures in a court of law. For example typically there are different standards of proof and even evidence. Nevertheless the accused are entitled to some standards of fairness otherwise we end up with ludicrous propositions like the one Ron constructed.

In new zealand the bill of rights guarantees people natural justice. I would be very surprised if there were not similar legislation or rules in many or most countries around the world.

I disagree that a self administering organization has any obligations with respect to "natural justice".
They can do whatever they damn well please, so long as it doesn't break the "real" laws.

If members don't like this, they're welcome to take a hike.
If too may members leave, the organization will fail.

Potentially, all this (ludicrous) discussion of "natural justice" is this playing out in the market place of ideas.
However, if this is case it seems more of a nonsensical distraction than anything else.

Personally, I'm quite happy with the ways things were adjudicated.
In a perfect world, things could probably have been improved upon slightly.

With this said and done, from what I can tell the WBF's overall performance in this case was head and shoulders above any of the other cases that have come up. I think that its telling that folks are complaining issues involving the schedule and whether or not it is intrinsically unfair that Americans were involved in the proceeding rather than any serious discussion regarding the charges.

[cherdano]

Yeah, to summarize:
A pair cheated its way to a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP OF BRIDGE, and would have gotten away with it if not for a very astute observation by one of its opponents.
And the chorus on BBF thinks the biggest issue is that the WBF didn't hold the hearing in the continent of the accused, or that one of the "judges" didn't recuse herself for conflict of interest (after the accused passed on the opportunity to request her to do that).

[the hog]

cherdano, on 2014-April-20, 16:11, said:

Yeah, to summarize:
A pair cheated its way to a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP OF BRIDGE, and would have gotten away with it if not for a very astute observation by one of its opponents.
And the chorus on BBF thinks the biggest issue is that the WBF didn't hold the hearing in the continent of the accused, or that one of the "judges" didn't recuse herself for conflict of interest (after the accused passed on the opportunity to request her to do that).

This is a naive and unintelligent position. I have only read one post in 9 pages that comes remotely close to holding that view. Many posters on the other hand, believe that not just must justice be done, but it must be seen to be done. In this case there are a number of issues that are sticking points.

Richard, I totally disagree with you on this point as well. An organisation as big as the WBF NEEDS to maintain the same set of standards as a nation state. It didn't and that is a sad state of affairs. As I said repeatedly, a common law case will probably decide the issue now. That should not have needed to happen.

[hrothgar]

the hog, on 2014-April-20, 18:05, said:

As I said repeatedly, a common law case will probably decide the issue now. That should not have needed to happen.

I seem to recall hearing that either Elinescu or Wladow has been involved in a large number of pretty ridiculous lawsuits.

I don't think that the procedures that the WBF followed have anything to do with the likelihood that the German's would sue.
From day one they were claiming that the case could only be decided by a Swiss Court.

FWIW, I really don't see how E+W were inconvenienced by the proceedings

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2014-April-20, 05:28, said:

What annoys me is people who claim they have evidence through personal experience of other people cheating, yet the only thing they've ever seemed to do about it is to bitch about it on an internet forum. Either report transgressions to the proper authorities or keep your mouth shut.

Agree that it's immoral and illegal to libel players. It's even worse if you have not formally reported your suspicions. It seems that many players have reported their suspicions, however, and no proper investigation has been undertaken. Bridge organisations avoid grasping this nettle, because it involves hard work, expense, and unpleasantness.

blackshoe, on 2014-April-20, 05:28, said:

WBF had a procedure that said "choose three of these five people to hear the case". They did that as best they could. You may not like it. Hell, maybe the WBF leadership didn't like it much. But the alternative would have been to throw the procedure out the window and start from scratch. Not only is that fraught with political problems, it's definitely grounds for some to argue that the decision (whichever way it went) was bogus. More so than following the correct procedure, which they did.

Over 50 years ago, the WBF handling of the R&S scandal was criticised for blatant bias. The WBF had time to develop a procedure with less in-built bias (e.g. in choice of judges). In the E&W case, most of the perceived injustice was easily avoidable, for example

• This case involved several people from EBL NBOs but only a few from the USA, so a European venue would accord with common sense, economy, and fairness.
• The WBF fixed a date that they knew was unsuitable for the DBV.
• The WBF failed to provide the DBV with relevant evidence in spite of timely requests and didn't consider their rebuttal evidence .

blackshoe, on 2014-April-20, 05:28, said:

Or perhaps you would have preferred to see Herr Wenning chair the committee.

Seemingly, that too would have accorded with WBF guidelines. Presumably, he would have recused himself. In the light of the committee's reported actions, however, could he have done a worse job?

We cling to the forlorn hope that lessons have been learnt for next time.

[ArtK78]

Whenever one enters an ACBL event, one must submit an entry form on which appears an acknowledgement of the rules governing the event. One must accept the rules governing the event in order to play. A participant has two options - play and accept the conditions that govern the event, or refuse to accept the conditions that govern the event and not play. The conditions that govern the event include acceptance of the rules and regulations governing appeals committees and conduct and ethics committees and to accept that the ACBL and its various subdivisions have the authority to determine whether any participant is abiding by its rules and regulations. In other words, one may not play in an ACBL event and later state that the rules and regulations governing the event do not apply and that the various bodies that review the conduct of the entrant have no jurisdiction to determine if the entrant complied with those rules and regulations.

If this were a commercial situation, such a condition on entry might be considered a contract of adhesion; however, this is not a commercial situation,and the entrant who objects to the conditions merely has to refuse to play.

When a player enters a WBF competition, does that player consent to the jurisdiction of the WBF to decide whether the player has complied with its rules and regulations?

[inquiry]

I am going to take a different view of how WBF handled this case. They were presented with the evidence at Bali. They video taped the episode in session 5 and 6 and had a monitor present. They should have had a preliminary hearing after the end of the session six and a finding of fact while everyone was present and before the world championship trophy was presented.

At the onsite hearing, everyone could have had a say. If at the end of the onsite hearing the conclusion was sufficient evidence existed for a full hearing one could have been scheduled then. Of course, no formal trial would be necessary if: 1) the evidence was insufficient for a finding of rules violation, or 2) either person, when presented with the evidence face-to-face admitted guilt.

A couple of advantages of this approach. Everyone is present, no need to potentially strip an already awarded championship (I am in the it is too late to remove the championship now group), if found guilty then the german doctors would not have been allowed to play in the Cavendish. Some disadvantages, the preliminary hearing is still not taking place in Europe (I am sure someone will complain about that), the doctors will have been "blindsided" by the charges with no time to prepare a defense, the WBF doesn't appear to have a mechanism for dealing with these charges on site. Another problem guess, the championship might have been awarded in minutes to just a few hours after completion of play so organizing a trial would not have been feasible.

So a basic question is, would it have been "fairer" to have the trial at the time the data was collected, or perhaps the next day in Bali, or was the only choice to wait until all the legal "i's" were dotted and legal "T's" crossed. I am in the camp that the WBF rules required who would prosecute and who would sit in judgment by their published and agreed upon regulations, so I find less fault in the "final hearing" than others, but I would have tried to get some kind of proceedings started in Bali at the time. If nothing more than a formal complaint by the USA team and a TD ruling of UI and an appeal committee review so that the Doctors could present their counter arguments on the record.

Guess I know none of that was ever going to happen.

[nige1]

the hog, on 2014-April-20, 18:05, said:

As I said repeatedly, a common law case will probably decide the issue now. That should not have needed to happen.

hrothgar, on 2014-April-20, 18:55, said:

I don't think that the procedures that the WBF followed have anything to do with the likelihood that the German's would sue. From day one they were claiming that the case could only be decided by a Swiss Court.

Avoidable shortcomings in the WBF hearing might improve W&E's litigation prospects.

hrothgar, on 2014-April-20, 18:55, said:

FWIW, I really don't see how E+W were inconvenienced by the proceedings

[nige1]

inquiry, on 2014-April-20, 19:26, said:

I am going to take a different view of how WBF handled this case. They were presented with the evidence at Bali. They video taped the episode in session 5 and 6 and had a monitor present. They should have had a preliminary hearing after the end of the session six and a finding of fact while everyone was present and before the world championship trophy was presented.

At the onsite hearing, everyone could have had a say. If at the end of the onsite hearing the conclusion was sufficient evidence existed for a full hearing one could have been scheduled then. Of course, no formal trial would be necessary if: 1) the evidence was insufficient for a finding of rules violation, or 2) either person, when presented with the evidence face-to-face admitted guilt.

A couple of advantages of this approach. Everyone is present, no need to potentially strip an already awarded championship (I am in the it is too late to remove the championship now group), if found guilty then the german doctors would not have been allowed to play in the Cavendish. Some disadvantages, the preliminary hearing is still not taking place in Europe (I am sure someone will complain about that), the doctors will have been "blindsided" by the charges with no time to prepare a defense, the WBF doesn't appear to have a mechanism for dealing with these charges on site. Another problem guess, the championship might have been awarded in minutes to just a few hours after completion of play so organizing a trial would not have been feasible.

So a basic question is, would it have been "fairer" to have the trial at the time the data was collected, or perhaps the next day in Bali, or was the only choice to wait until all the legal "i's" were dotted and legal "T's" crossed. I am in the camp that the WBF rules required who would prosecute and who would sit in judgment by their published and agreed upon regulations, so I find less fault in the "final hearing" than others, but I would have tried to get some kind of proceedings started in Bali at the time. If nothing more than a formal complaint by the USA team and a TD ruling of UI and an appeal committee review so that the Doctors could present their counter arguments on the record.

Guess I know none of that was ever going to happen.

I agree that, for most infractions, a timely resolution is appropriate. But, for cheating allegations that involve code-breaking it's advisable, from a statistical view-point, to continue observing, after you think you have broken the code, to confirm that it is what you suspect,

The latter approach entails a longer investigation. It's justifiable only if, on conviction, you void fraudulent achievements and move everybody else up. That's a fudge, especially in Knock-out events. You might make a better attempt at rescuing the Cavendish by eliminating results against a cheating pair.

[aguahombre]

I could understand an immediate "Preliminary Hearing", such as in criminal matters ---where the burden is merely probable cause. Then the accused (We have other names for them in criminal matters, official and unofficial names.) could be remanded or freed on bail (suspended) pending a formal hearing and both sides would have time to slam dunk their case if they have one.

But this would not have the desired effect of vacating any titles, because I don't think that would be appropriate without an official determination....so why bother? Back to what the WBF did. Best procedure possible, but not best possible procedure.

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on 2014-April-20, 19:26, said:

When a player enters a WBF competition, does that player consent to the jurisdiction of the WBF to decide whether the player has complied with its rules and regulations?

Yes.

WBF General Conditions of Contest:
3. Conditions of Entry
3.1 General
World Bridge Championships are conducted under the auspices of the WBF and all events designated as World Bridge Championships shall be played in accordance with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007. These Conditions of Contest, and any Supplemental Conditions of Contest, supplement the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007 as required.

Law 80A:
1. The Regulating Authority under these laws is
(a) for its own world tournaments and events the World Bridge Federation.
...
2. The Regulating Authority has the responsibilities and powers specified in these laws.
3. The Regulating Authority may delegate its powers (retaining ultimate responsibility for their exercise) or it may assign them (in which case it has no further responsibility for their exercise).

[gwnn]

Could someone example to me what exactly is so stupid about this method, assuming the goal is to send illicit messages to partner when playing with screens {added for clarity in response to the post below}? Coughing is ubiquitous at the bridge table. Communicating through sound is very likely the best way nowadays, since you can't see your partner and knocking/tapping your feet stand out much more than coughing. To me, coughing seems to be the easiest to accept as an innocuous deviation from being silent (see, for example, libraries, classical concerts, etc, where really any other sound than a cough is frowned upon). The only thing that is tough for me is to cough exactly 3 or 4 times (I sometimes get to 5 or 6 if I try) but it seems like a skill you can master in an afternoon.

So, assuming we go for coughs, what could be an improvement on 1 cough=clubs, 2 coughs=diamonds, etc? I can think of a few possibilities:

-use an extra variable, like the note, volume, or duration of the coughs, but it would really look suspicious if you had someone coughing like a canary one board and then like a bear 5 minutes later.
-use the timing of the coughs as well (they apparently did that already). While it is not likely to arise extra suspicion, this does run the risk of being messed up, since to window to spread your signals is relatively small and variable.
-use a more complicated code than 1=clubs, etc, maybe changing by adding the board number, vulnerability, etc. I think it is a bit of a stretch, you can't go to far into maths, like I said, the window to act is relatively small, the risk of messing it up will be quite high.

I know that nobody here would ever consider personally using such methods, but in order to label one illegal method stupid, we need to establish which other methods would be superior. We already heard about slotting but that is a fundamentally different idea where you are trying to extract information from an opponent, not to exchange information from partner. So, feel free to point out what I missed in the analysis above, or suggest some different, more sophisticated methods altogether.

[the hog]

"We already heard about slotting but that is a fundamentally different idea where you are trying to extract information from an opponent, not to exchange information from partner."
Not so. You can also look to see from where your partner is pulling his cards.

[gwnn]

Not with screens. Sorry, should have been clear about that. Of course with screens you can use all sorts of very subtle visual signals as well.

[Cascade]

I think the most obvious improvement is to mix the signal with some noise. In this case have some other random coughs that conveyed no meaning.