[gordontd]

 ahh, on 2015-September-08, 05:13, said:

Nigel (nige1)

there is little point using Reese Schapiro to challenge how we investigate cheating . Whatever the evidence and whatever the interpretation of the evidence Reese admitted he cheated . End of . They cheated . In this day and age where honour and integrity have little following we will have to wait a long time before anybody confesses this time round unless it is in their interests to do as part of a plea bargain


Jim Hay

What do you base this on?

[steve2005]

Up front I'll say I think they are cheating but not from the hands given. I know I'm not good enough nor have the time to go thru all the hands and analyse them Heck, I've even done some of these non-expert plays and thought they were the right thing to do at the time. But having a team give up a slew of major wins and all the experts who do think they are cheating does. Does that constitute evidence? No, I leave that up to the WBF or ACBL to figure out.

[MrAce]

 steve2005, on 2015-September-08, 12:41, said:

Up front I'll say I think they are cheating but not from the hands given. I know I'm not good enough nor have the time to go thru all the hands and analyse them Heck, I've even done some of these non-expert plays and thought they were the right thing to do at the time. But having a team give up a slew of major wins and all the experts who do think they are cheating does. Does that constitute evidence? No, I leave that up to the WBF or ACBL to figure out.

Obviously you have not watched the videos of board and tray placements and not read how they broke the code. I believed they were cheating from the hands. I also believed, just like you. that the opinion of top players and their actions meant a lot to me. But just with hands and opinions without videos, I would not go all Snowden on them.

[mikeh]

 MrAce, on 2015-September-08, 13:26, said:

Obviously you have not watched the videos of board and tray placements and not read how they broke the code. I believed they were cheating from the hands. I also believed, just like you. that the opinion of top players and their actions meant a lot to me. But just with hands and opinions without videos, I would not go all Snowden on them.

Timo

I have read all of the posts on BW and here, and accept that, on balance, there appears to be sufficient evidence to be fairly sure that F-S cheated. However, there have been a huge number of posts, here and on BW, that seem to me to reflect an incredible desire to convict without any pretence to objectivity. Even Woolsey demonstrated flawed thinking.

Remember the videos he reviewed, after the board-placement code had been cracked?

He went through an entire match and kept a running tab of hands on which the code predicted what suit partner wanted and what suit was led, and he claimed a perfect match.

Yet on one hand, the code specified a certain action for a spade lead. The action taken was different. A spade was led.

An intellectually honest response would have been:

'Maybe we haven't yet fully understood the code...we thought that to suggest a spade lead, he would do 'x', but he did 'y'. Either we don't yet have the code, or they changed this part of the code, or maybe we are just wrong about this'.

Instead, he wrote, paraphrased: we must have the code wrong...'y' must be the code...he did 'y'...this is proof of cheating!

It was nonsense. It made me feel ill to read it. This is the best we can do? When the evidence contradicts our theory, we maintain that the evidence confirms our theory?

In a similar vein, there were several hands on which no signal was made. Woolsey doesn't simply note that no signal was made. He argues that no signal was needed, or that signalling would have been too obvious, so that the lack of a signal is twisted into being proof of cheating.

Ish did much the same in his analysis. Wherever the evidence didn't meet with expectations, based on 'knowing' that these guys were cheating, Woolsey and Ish come up with 'explanations' that reinforce their view that these people are cheating. They even tell us what F-S were thinking....and of course what they were thinking was that they were cheating.

In effect the 'investigation' showed:

- lots of hands on which it appears that a coded message was sent and acted on. This is good evidence
-at least one hand on which it appears that a mistake of some kind was made by the analysts OR that maybe no cheating was going on. That hand was twisted into becoming compelling evidence of cheating. This is preposterous evidence, indicating bias on the observer not guilt of the observed.
-several hands on which it appears that no signalling was made or the lead was inconsistent with the signal. In each case, the analysis was twisted so that the lack of a signal or the lack of a requested lead somehow became further evidence of cheating. Again, the only thing this proves is that the analyst has already determined the outcome.


This was so unnecessary. The incredible level of confirmation bias present even in the most widely praised 'analysis' is sickening and disappointing.

I think there is good evidence of cheating, but it hurts the case, if ever argued before dispassionate observers, when the analysts are so obviously willing to commit basic logical fallacies to make sure that they gain a conviction.

Process matters. Process is important even when the outcome seems certain....one could argue that process is even more important than normal in that case, because the temptation to cut corners becomes far more attractive when we 'know' the outcome we all desire.

I repeat what I have written before. Blood-lust and confirmation bias raise the concern that in the future an innocent but not popular player or pair will be subjected to the same flawed public annihilation using similar tactics.

Most people here and on BW are so convinced that they are right and that the Ish's and Woolsey's are heroes, that I suspect this post, and others to similar effect, are a waste of time.

[Fluffy]

I also found flaws on Woolsey's analysis

[steve2005]

 MrAce, on 2015-September-08, 13:26, said:

Obviously you have not watched the videos of board and tray placements and not read how they broke the code.

Yes, ive seen some, certainly suspicious but I haven't seen enough of them to come to a conclusion myself and not qualified.

[ahh]

It is based on the widely publicized existence of a letter opened after the death of both players confirming that Reese was intending to write a book on cheating at cards . Some of the information to be used was the hands from the World Championship. it was suggested that afterwards he would have admitted to all that that was he had done .Unless the letter was an elaborate hoax that remains the basis for making the statement . If i am wrong about that then I stand to be corrected and better informed

Jim Hay

[gnasher]

 ahh, on 2015-September-08, 15:12, said:

It is based on the widely publicized existence of a letter opened after the death of both players confirming that Reese was intending to write a book on cheating at cards . Some of the information to be used was the hands from the World Championship. it was suggested that afterwards he would have admitted to all that that was he had done .Unless the letter was an elaborate hoax that remains the basis for making the statement . If i am wrong about that then I stand to be corrected and better informed

It's not a hoax - it's a myth. Nobody has ever produced any such letter, or claimed to have such a letter in their possession.

There was a public assertion by David Rex-Taylor that Reese had confessed to him. He didn't provide any supporting evidence. The article he wrote is here:

IBPA bulletin 485

Leaving aside the question of their guilt or innocence, it seems to me very unlikely that Reese, who had a rather large ego, should choose to posthumously destroy his own reputation.

[MrAce]

 mikeh, on 2015-September-08, 14:55, said:

Timo

I have read all of the posts on BW and here, and accept that, on balance, there appears to be sufficient evidence to be fairly sure that F-S cheated. However, there have been a huge number of posts, here and on BW, that seem to me to reflect an incredible desire to convict without any pretence to objectivity. Even Woolsey demonstrated flawed thinking.

Remember the videos he reviewed, after the board-placement code had been cracked?

He went through an entire match and kept a running tab of hands on which the code predicted what suit partner wanted and what suit was led, and he claimed a perfect match.

Yet on one hand, the code specified a certain action for a spade lead. The action taken was different. A spade was led.

An intellectually honest response would have been:

'Maybe we haven't yet fully understood the code...we thought that to suggest a spade lead, he would do 'x', but he did 'y'. Either we don't yet have the code, or they changed this part of the code, or maybe we are just wrong about this'.

Instead, he wrote, paraphrased: we must have the code wrong...'y' must be the code...he did 'y'...this is proof of cheating!

It was nonsense. It made me feel ill to read it. This is the best we can do? When the evidence contradicts our theory, we maintain that the evidence confirms our theory?

In a similar vein, there were several hands on which no signal was made. Woolsey doesn't simply note that no signal was made. He argues that no signal was needed, or that signalling would have been too obvious, so that the lack of a signal is twisted into being proof of cheating.

Ish did much the same in his analysis. Wherever the evidence didn't meet with expectations, based on 'knowing' that these guys were cheating, Woolsey and Ish come up with 'explanations' that reinforce their view that these people are cheating. They even tell us what F-S were thinking....and of course what they were thinking was that they were cheating.

In effect the 'investigation' showed:

- lots of hands on which it appears that a coded message was sent and acted on. This is good evidence
-at least one hand on which it appears that a mistake of some kind was made by the analysts OR that maybe no cheating was going on. That hand was twisted into becoming compelling evidence of cheating. This is preposterous evidence, indicating bias on the observer not guilt of the observed.
-several hands on which it appears that no signalling was made or the lead was inconsistent with the signal. In each case, the analysis was twisted so that the lack of a signal or the lack of a requested lead somehow became further evidence of cheating. Again, the only thing this proves is that the analyst has already determined the outcome.


This was so unnecessary. The incredible level of confirmation bias present even in the most widely praised 'analysis' is sickening and disappointing.

I think there is good evidence of cheating, but it hurts the case, if ever argued before dispassionate observers, when the analysts are so obviously willing to commit basic logical fallacies to make sure that they gain a conviction.

Process matters. Process is important even when the outcome seems certain....one could argue that process is even more important than normal in that case, because the temptation to cut corners becomes far more attractive when we 'know' the outcome we all desire.

I repeat what I have written before. Blood-lust and confirmation bias raise the concern that in the future an innocent but not popular player or pair will be subjected to the same flawed public annihilation using similar tactics.

Most people here and on BW are so convinced that they are right and that the Ish's and Woolsey's are heroes, that I suspect this post, and others to similar effect, are a waste of time.

Mike, we will have to agree to disagree since I pretty much disagree with almost everything you said. I will not debate it for long with you though, because after this post of your I started to believe you have read everything half, or simply did not understand. And I am tired of going through one by one again just to convince. You are not convinced, that is fine, I only respect your decision. Although as you said yourself, I know you believe they cheat and only thing you do not like is the chosen evidence/analysis/methods to come to conclusion.

One thing though, about "He went through an entire match and kept a running tab of hands on which the code predicted what suit partner wanted and what suit was led, and he claimed a perfect match." You evidently not have read or understood what he said. He specifically said that the lead is irrelevant. He said what the opening leader's hand wants and whether the alleged code matches to what he wants as a lead. It is irrelevant what his pd leads for many reasons.

About the spade signal being not a match with the alleged code. I agree, they agree that ♠ may not be solved. How come you missed that so many people said this, despite your claim that says you read everything. But anyway, none of us are required to break the entire code to convict someone. What matters is that they had a code. Clubs, Diamonds and Hearts are perfect match. When no preference it is perfect match. Imo their code is much more complex than what people thought. I remember David Gold did not even believe they had a code because they played so many hands so perfectly that he believed they had the hand records. (he wrote "I am in the 'they somehow get hand records camp"

I said you haven't read the entire thing for a reason. How do I know this? From your comments about Kit. Here is a quick way to read comments only made by KIT. I ask everyone to go through them quickly. Go to BW and in search type his name. When it opens click on his name this will take you to Kit's profile. Click on "comments" It will list you all the comments made by him. Just reading this (I just did) will tell you how unfair most of your criticism is.

http://bridgewinners...woolsey/?page=2

He defended so many times that the selected hands do not mean anything regardless of how weird they look. At some point Justin told him that he was being irresponsible. He defended every little-tiny possibility of innocence of the alleged pair until videos. After Videos he still defended them until Magnus posted the alleged code. He then went and spend almost over 1 day over them. Again his hypothesis was never about the success of leads. He said this repeatedly.

Anyway, I am tired and will go bed. And I still ♥ you Mike. If it turns out that you were right and the evidence or code or their hypothesis was wrong and this weakens their case, then I will be the first one to admit that. I strongly doubt it but I am old enough to know to never say never.

[mikeh]

Timo

I didn't in fact read absolutely everything that Kit wrote....I just spent some more time and confirmed my original impression.....there is, and this is unavoidable given the context, an enormous amount of repetition, but one post struck me as really telling.

He argued that we should use our preconceptions about guilt or innocence to influence how we perceive an action!!!!! This is such utter nonsense, that I can only assume that he has temporarily lost his mind, due to wanting so badly to defend his conclusions and those of people he sees as 'right'.

This is the exact opposite of how one should think.

As has been explained countless times, altho the vast majority of posters seen oblivious to it, there is a proper, reliable way of demonstrating, to a very real sense of accuracy, whether they cheat and how. It is NOT done by analyzing an action on the assumption that what we are looking at is evidence of cheating!!!

It is human nature. Look at the shooting in Ferguson. Those who believe the cop was justified see all of the evidence in that light. They assume that the black kid was threatening and menacing, because that is the impression they have of young black males in an urban environment. Those who believe the cop murdered the kid assume that that is how cops regard young black males in an urabn environment...as a threat against whom the cop thinks he can get away, literally, with murder if the kid annoys him.

Prejudice colours the reaction and leads to horrible, unjust outcomes, with the two sides, so convinced of their righteousness, unable even to have a rational debate.

Here, the approach taken by Woolsey and Ish, that is to look at everything with the sure knowledge (which is not knowledge at all, but belief) that cheating is going on leads to incredible mental gymnastics in which a lack of a signal is taken as evidence of cheating, and the observers even tell us what the cheaters are thinking.....for example, that despite the request for a diamond lead, the leader led a club.....this was chalked up as confirmation of cheating!!! Why? because the observer said that the leader worked out that a diamond lead would have been too suspicious.

A rational observer would have noted that the partner appears, if the code is correct, to have asked for a diamond. A club was led. Several explanations are possible. They might not have signals at all....we may be reading into their idiosyncracies things that aren't there. Or we may be misinterpreting the signals....maybe they are cheating but we haven't figured out all the nuances....or maybe leader didn't want to make what would have seemed to be a bizarre lead, especially given that they know that they are under suspicion.

Then the rational observer would have compiled a series of hands on which we think a suit was signalled, and see if we can see any pattern in those hands on which leader chose another suit.

That would take a lot of hands. A statistician might be able to give us some estimate.

Another example: Kit says that it is possible to calculate the odds that a weird lead would be made absent cheating. He said, for example, maybe a lead would be 1000-1. This is nonsense. Just an obvious example, with which Woolsey is very familiar, look at the lead questions in the Bridge World, with a relatively small panel....far less than 1000 players. Yet there have often been weird leads chosen by a minority of players. Pretending to use statistics for this sort of analysis is idiotic since one can and does choose the odds to prove the point. If Woolsey thinks they cheat, then he assigns the chances of an honest lead to be 1000-1. If it were an honest pair, he would say it is meaningless. This is horrible, laughable 'reasoning' and yet, so far, represents the epitome of the investigation.

if this is the best the self-policing expert community can do, then we are going to see an ever-increasing series of ugly whisper campaigns, because this 'evidence' would be rightly rejected by any competent tribunal. I repeat: this is sad because everything we have seen is highly suggestive of cheating and, when added to my knowledge of some of the people (especially Graves), convinces me. Keep this up, and FS may win this fight. Not you, Timo....the Woolseys and Ish's of the world. I just hope that somewhere someone with intellectual rigour is doing the hard work.

[Vampyr]

Mikes

I am it anything like the bridge player and analyst that you are. But I submit my impressions after watching the Norway video:

When Tor-erik was removing the tray and Schwarz grabbed the board off it that was weird. And the club signal when Fischer kept the board in front of him not making it visible through the hatch was super weird.

The other board placements were strange too and it is odd that a player would not put the board in the same place every time. In my experience they do, and the placements did follow the code.

I think that Woolsey definitely showed a bias when the board placement and lead did not match. But it seems to me that his eg 10/10 or whatever should have been eg 8/10.

Making too much of the evidence is poor and damages the case against F/S. But the evidence is definitely there, and it is difficult to deny, after watching the video of just that one match, that something is going on, evident to the point that a non-bridge player would notice it.

[nige1]

I agree with mikeh that many forum-members are baying for blood and their arguments demonstrate bias. I quibble on a few mikeh points. For example, IMO, it's significant that there's no signal when observers judge no signal to be needed (although, judgements and observations should be, but are not always, made independently -- and the process should be properly audited).

On the central issue, however, I agree that this way of treating cheating allegations is morally wrong. Even if the authorities abjectly fail in their responsibilities, 2 wrongs still don't make a right.

[mikeh]

 Vampyr, on 2015-September-08, 19:26, said:

Mikes

I am it anything like the bridge player and analyst that you are. But I submit my impressions after watching the Norway video:

When Tor-erik was removing the tray and Schwarz grabbed the board off it that was weird. And the club signal when Fischer kept the board in front of him not making it visible through the hatch was super weird.

The other board placements were strange too and it is odd that a player would not put the board in the same place every time. In my experience they do, and the placements did follow the code.

I think that Woolsey definitely showed a bias when the board placement and lead did not match. But it seems to me that his eg 10/10 or whatever should have been eg 8/10.

Making too much of the evidence is poor and damages the case against F/S. But the evidence is definitely there, and it is difficult to deny, after watching the video of just that one match, that something is going on, evident to the point that a non-bridge player would notice it.

I suspect you misunderstand me. I think them to be guilty. I think that some of the evidence is extremely suggestive. I am being critical of process, not (yet anyway) result, Maybe it is my training and experience as a trial lawyer (not in the criminal realm), but irrational arguments that appeal to prejudice make me feel very ill-disposed to those who make the arguments, even when I share their underlying suspicions....

[MrAce]

Mike, here are #2 and #3 decisions that are published by IBF. SEC. I am not posting this for the purpose of proving anything. I already know that you and I are not actually in opposite sides of what we think the truth is, regardless of our differences about the process. Just asking your opinion as lawyer what inferences can you draw from these decisions, if any, other than what it exactly says. I mean is it normal procedure for the lawyer(s) of F-S to challenge the authority of IBF Special Ethics Committee or does it suggest something about F-S trying to avoid the questions by this committee in your experience?

Decision #2

Decision #3


Thanks

[cherdano]

Timo, all it says that F-S's lawyers thinks its in his clients best interests to challenge the legitimacy of this committee. To me, this looks consistent both with being guilty and innocent. (If you were innocent, wouldn't you want things to calm down before someone makes a judgement about you? Wouldn't you be worried about being wrongly convicted of cheating in the heat of the moment?)

[MrAce]

 cherdano, on 2015-September-08, 23:54, said:

Timo, all it says that F-S's lawyers thinks its in his clients best interests to challenge the legitimacy of this committee. To me, this looks consistent both with being guilty and innocent. (If you were innocent, wouldn't you want things to calm down before someone makes a judgement about you? Wouldn't you be worried about being wrongly convicted of cheating in the heat of the moment?)

This is totally understandable Arend. But if this is their reasoning (to slow down the process) then why don't they ask for it openly and make a reasonable argument as you just did? Request for more time to prepare defense due to the severity of the accusation and due to the possible heavy consequences of the outcome. I would think everyone will find it very reasonable to grant them the time they request, am I wrong?

EDIT: My personal view, what they really do not want is IBF to come to a decision before EBL or ACBL does. I may be wrong but imo they believe the decision of IBF will affect directly the decisions of others.

[cherdano]

 MrAce, on 2015-September-09, 00:02, said:

EDIT: My personal view, what they really do not want is IBF to come to a decision before EBL or ACBL does. I may be wrong but imo they believe the decision of IBF will affect directly the decisions of others.

Again, this does not lead to any conclusions about their guilt. Maybe they believe the IBF committee is biased against them, and they will get a fairer hearing at the ACBL or EBL.

Lawyers of innocent defendants try to prevent charges going to trial everyday. "I am innocent, I have nothing to lose by going to trial, as I will get cleared of all charges" is naive.

[MrAce]

 cherdano, on 2015-September-09, 00:28, said:

Lawyers of innocent defendants try to prevent charges going to trial everyday. "I am innocent, I have nothing to lose by going to trial, as I will get cleared of all charges" is naive.

I agree with you that it is naive to take the risk by going to trial if the community is large in your profession. Otoh, I think totally the opposite when it comes to small societies like bridge world and you are the celebrity of this small community. Which then makes it naive to believe that everything will go away and people will forget it by the time if only you can avoid the charges. Na..if you are innocent and accused wrongly, your best chance is to fight when it comes to small community or you are pretty much done. Especially when you write on your webpage that you will fight and prove your innocence. Running from your opportunity to clear your name is not the best way to disprove and clear your name. But that's my opinion only.

[Antrax]

I saw those committee decisions and didn't think they contained anything of interest. It's just legal preliminaries, like in court cases the defendant always files for dismissal before bothering presenting any defense.

[phil_20686]

 mikeh, on 2015-September-08, 19:08, said:

Timo

I didn't in fact read absolutely everything that Kit wrote....I just spent some more time and confirmed my original impression.....there is, and this is unavoidable given the context, an enormous amount of repetition, but one post struck me as really telling.

He argued that we should use our preconceptions about guilt or innocence to influence how we perceive an action!!!!! This is such utter nonsense, that I can only assume that he has temporarily lost his mind, due to wanting so badly to defend his conclusions and those of people he sees as 'right'.

This is the exact opposite of how one should think.

As has been explained countless times, altho the vast majority of posters seen oblivious to it, there is a proper, reliable way of demonstrating, to a very real sense of accuracy, whether they cheat and how. It is NOT done by analyzing an action on the assumption that what we are looking at is evidence of cheating!!!

It is human nature. Look at the shooting in Ferguson. Those who believe the cop was justified see all of the evidence in that light. They assume that the black kid was threatening and menacing, because that is the impression they have of young black males in an urban environment. Those who believe the cop murdered the kid assume that that is how cops regard young black males in an urabn environment...as a threat against whom the cop thinks he can get away, literally, with murder if the kid annoys him.

Comparing it to Ferguson is hardly an apples to oranges comparison. One is all about the context of a specific incident, the other has been repeated in reasonably controlled conditions hundreds if not thousands of times.

Code breaking, as with most learning techniques, comes in two stages. In the first you literally do attempt to analyse every movement to get the best explanation of the results possible. In the second, you take your hypothesis about the code to a second, unrelated set of boards, and see which parts of your hypothesis stand up to this independent test. If, broadly, your hypothesis is predictive, then you can be reasonably sure that you have discovered a signal. This is called "training your model" and "testing your model", and there is a usually a third part, validating. If we put woosley and ish in the "training your model", then approaching it with the belief that they are cheating is the right thing to do, the next step is to take the code to some unrelated set of boards and see if its predictive on boards that the code breakers have never seen.