[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on Oct 16 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

(Obligatory reference to conducting major championships using an electronic playing environment deleted cause no one wants to hear that yet again)

But, in fact, this must be done -- and will be, eventually.

[cherdanno]

PassedOut, on Oct 16 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 16 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

(Obligatory reference to conducting major championships using an electronic playing environment deleted cause no one wants to hear that yet again)

But, in fact, this must be done -- and will be, eventually.

Btw, Richard, did you know that you have Howard Weinstein on your side? He made some remarks on that in a Bridge World writeup of a championship - I don't remember which one, unfortunately.

[nige1]

ArtK78, on Oct 16 2009, 01:52 PM, said:

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I find it worthy of note that the principals being accused have not refuted the allegations.  While one poster addressed this by stating that "a dignified silence is the best anybody can manage, in such trying circumstances," I find that argument to be ingenuous.  And, while that same poster, paraphrasing Terence Reese, stated that it is impossible to prove that one is not cheating, that is not what I am looking for.  I don't need proof that the accused are not cheating.  But, at the very least, I need a denial from the accused.  I have seen none. So, while it may very well be true that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, the lack of a denial of guilt can be very telling.

You are welcome to quote me by name, ArtK78 In several cases of alleged cheating, players have protested their innocence but convincing evidence has been presented, resulting in bans and a cleaner game (eg screens).

But there still seems to be no effective investigation protocol. In the Reese-Schapiro case, the American team did not report the alleged cheats. Instead, they drafted their own observers who were told the putative code. A witness for the prosecution chaired the WBF committee to consider the cheating allegations. The committee members included interested parties who should have recused themselves. R-S were not told the charges beforehand, had no opportunity to examine evidence, cross-examine prosecution witnesses, or call witnesses of their own. The Foster-Bourne enquiry remedied some of these deficiencies but the WBF reversed its findings.

The current vilification campaign against the Blue-Team seems just as unfair. So far the accusations are vague and the evidence nebulous. Hence they are almost impossible to refute. Furthermore, top US players have made many cheating allegations over more than fifty years. It would be demeaning, pointless, and tedious to deny every one of them. ArtK78 calls my argument ingenous but I don't understand why

In the Blue-Team case, there are two items that could be produced now, and might plug the evidential gap.

• Leandro Burgay's tapes. Wolff could publish an accurate transcript (The CIA might be a fairly reliable source). If the Italian Bridge Federation disputed the authenticity of the transcript, they could correct it from the original tapes that were consigned to their safe-keeping.
  
• Jaime Ortiz Patiño's minutes (or contemporaneous notes or whatever) of
  • The WBF ban on the Blue-Team from International competition.
    
  • WBF decisions to relax that ban in several subsequent years.

My guess, however, is that we may have a long wait

[gnasher]

ArtK78, on Oct 16 2009, 07:52 PM, said:

But, at the very least, I need a denial from the accused. I have seen none.

If they are innocent, why should they dignify the accusations with a denial? If I were wrongly accused, via an internet blog, of cheating, I would treat both the accusations and the accusers with contempt.

[ArtK78]

It stands to reason that the accused would treat the accusers with contempt, given the nature of the accusation.

Still, a blanket denial seems in order (not a point-by-point denial, nor proof of innocence, just a denial).

In my opinion, the silence is deafening.

[blackshoe]

Personally, I suspect these references to the CIA are nonsense, but even if they do have pertinent information, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to produce it.

The fact that something was written on the Internet does not mean that any particular person or group of persons have read it, so that no member of the Blue Team has logged on to Judy's blog (or here, for that matter) to deny the allegations is hardly conclusive, or even convincing. Besides, if some such person did log on with such a denial, I'm sure there are plenty who would dismiss it as posturing.

I'd be much more inclined to believe the allegations if they came from a disinterested third party, rather than from someone who apparently has an axe to grind.

[ArtK78]

It is more than a little fanciful to expect some disinterested third party to make such an accusation, is it not? What motive would such a disinterested third party have to make such an accusation?

[Cascade]

ArtK78, on Oct 17 2009, 09:52 AM, said:

It stands to reason that the accused would treat the accusers with contempt, given the nature of the accusation.

Still, a blanket denial seems in order (not a point-by-point denial, nor proof of innocence, just a denial).

In my opinion, the silence is deafening.

On other forums there have been claims against Bobby Wolff.

Do you also consider his silence deafening?

[kayin801]

I propose the following experiment:

Let's assume that someone is publicly accused of cheating. The medium of accusation is irrelevant, whether it be some news source, popular internet posts, or a mention from the appropriate governing body of the league. Then we have two variables to consider: The person is either cheating or they aren't, and the person is convicted of cheating or they aren't. Look at all 4 cases.

Person is cheating and is caught: They're shamed forever in the eyes of those familiar with them and the game, and will likely face some sort of lengthy ban, despite their apologies or constant denials.

Person isn't cheating and is wrongly convicted: They're shamed forever in the eyes of those familiar with them and the game, and will likely face some sort of lengthy ban, despite their constant denial of doing so.

Person is cheating and isn't caught: They get away with it and (likely) stop cheating, and maybe are pleased with themselves, but there's always a cloud of doubt surrounding them as to whether or not they ACTUALLY WERE cheating.

Person is not cheating and isn't convicted: Theoretically they get off the hook as they should, but now people look at them and still wonder; were they cheating? This person, no matter what an upstanding citizen they were before, will never be seen in the same light again.



Clearly the cases where the person is cheating, at least that person gets what they deserve to some extent. The damage is far greater for the cases where there is no cheating, however. An innocent person, accused of cheating, wrongly loses face one way or another. In all 4 cases, they may not completely lose all respect from everyone, but it's undeniable that anyone looks at someone who was caught or accused of cheating and asks, "were they?"

Let me draw a parallel to Major League Baeball for a moment. All the people who have been accused of using steroids, have admitted to using steroids, or even in this day and age have seen significant changes in playing ability from one year to another, every single one has lost face in the eyes of many fans. Even if they may be innocent! As an example, earlier this year, David Ortiz was named as having used banned substances in the past, and he has denied it. Even if it's the case that he wasn't using them, he's already lost some respect from both his peers and all fans of baseball that won't be gained back, because there will always be this worry now: was he using steroids? As awkward and annoying as it seems at times, the MLB front office has done a good job not listing all the names of the people who tested positive for banned substances in the past simply due to the fallout it would cause at 100 stars being shamed all at ones.

I don't want to say that bridge officials in the past should have used better information control exactly, but the whole situation got thrown out of whack as a result of their failure to better manage the situation. Then, to compound issues, public media was presented further explaining the accusation despite no affirmed conviction (which I believe was the case at the release of the Truscott book for the R-S case? Please correct me if I'm wrong). The same things happen today on specific bridge blogs where people take it upon themselves as the virtuous human beings that they are to make sure everyone else knows that they think so and so is a cheater.

It doesn't matter if there is a lot of damning evidence; it's not the place of anyone but the governing body to hang someone. Perhaps justice isn't being served, but what if you get it wrong? What if the person wasn't cheating and now you've tarnished their reputation. In some ways that's far worse than cheating itself. There's a reason that when you suspect someone of cheating you don't just jump up at the table and accuse them, you instead talk to a director. If an investigation doesn't turn up concrete evidence, even if the investigation was poor, you can't just say "THEY WERE CHEATING ANYWAY!"

This is why, in my opinion, people who make public accusations on their own initiative are just being irresponsible and are satisfying their own egos.

I hope people will note that I haven't given support one way or the other to bridge players in this post. I have my opinions but that's not what this post was about.

Okay, I'm gonna go try to make up the hour of work I just wasted.

[kayin801]

gnasher, on Oct 16 2009, 05:36 AM, said:

Nigel, you do know that this is the Internet, don't you?

Clearly the definitive quote of this entire thread: people are inherently one notch dumber and two notches less responsible and inhibited when using the internet. Well played gnasher.

I certainly have my opinions of all the cheating. OH, I have my opinions. But rather than making a claim "x was cheating" I'd rather say "the evidences suggests that..." as opposed to some posts which want to spin matters in a certain way.

[jdonn]

kayin801, on Oct 16 2009, 05:32 PM, said:

gnasher, on Oct 16 2009, 05:36 AM, said:

Nigel, you do know that this is the Internet, don't you?

Clearly the definitive quote of this entire thread: people are inherently one notch dumber and two notches less responsible and inhibited when using the internet. Well played gnasher.

I certainly have my opinions of all the cheating. OH, I have my opinions. But rather than making a claim "x was cheating" I'd rather say "the evidences suggests that..." as opposed to some posts which want to spin matters in a certain way.

Lol, I don't know what's funnier. That you accuse everyone of being too dogmatic and insistent in a post that started "Clearly [opinion]", or that you called the posting public irresponsible in the same sentence in which you said they are dumb (or can't control their own dumbness-increase when posting online, or something like that).

I guess you proved your own point that it's a lot easier to act sure about opinions than to look oneself in the mirror, even if you did so in an unintended way. And what makes it astounding is that you are just so darn sure that your behavior is the model to be followed by all.

[Winstonm]

I was pretty good friends with Ed Theus back in Oklahoma City, and Ed was involved with the ACBL big wigs and world bridge - he always claimed that the Italians cheated but would never get into specifics. I put it down to sour grapes, but who knows for sure...

[hanp]

Saying bridge players cheat is about as daring as saying cyclists use doping, isn't it? Everybody knows it, the only question is what you do with it. Do you try to use the same tricks as others do, so that you are at an equal footing, or do you try to be ethical and lose to Italy every single time. My impression is that among professional players many have chosen to use the same tricks.

[kayin801]

jdonn, on Oct 16 2009, 03:42 PM, said:

Lol, I don't know what's funnier. That you accuse everyone of being too dogmatic and insistent in a post that started "Clearly [opinion]", or that you called the posting public irresponsible in the same sentence in which you said they are dumb (or can't control their own dumbness-increase when posting online, or something like that).

I guess you proved your own point that it's a lot easier to act sure about opinions than to look oneself in the mirror, even if you did so in an unintended way. And what makes it astounding is that you are just so darn sure that your behavior is the model to be followed by all.

I figured I qualified as "people" as well (unless I'm some sort of cyborg/trollbot... not out of the question?!) so I didn't mean to exclude myself from that group, though I can see how it would be interpreted that way?

I would also call "being responsible about making accusations" a fairly common ethical action (you disagree?), though evidently I'm too busy accusing everyone about making unethical accusations to be ethical myself. ... ow my brain

[jdonn]

I do understand your point nonetheless. It was never made better than in this old gem.

[kayin801]

jdonn, on Oct 16 2009, 04:28 PM, said:

I do understand your point nonetheless. It was never made better than in this old gem.

It's what trolls live for.

[fred]

hanp, on Oct 16 2009, 11:03 PM, said:

My impression is that among professional players many have chosen to use the same tricks.

I am surprised by your impression. FWIW my impression is that the game is very clean at its highest levels these days.

I have had a lot of experience playing against almost all of the world's most successful professional partnerships during the past 10+ years. In that time, the number of leading pro pairs who have left me with a clear impression of "cheating" could be counted on one finger - I don't recall how many hearts that shows in the R-S methods...

Almost all of the others top pro pairs (probably several dozen) have left me with a clear impression of "honest".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[the hog]

[quote name='jjbrr' date='Oct 16 2009, 09:05 PM'] snipped

Rik [/QUOTE]
Did you read all the posts in the blog? Wolff does provide evidence. I can't believe you keep saying there is no evidence whatsoever. If you were, on the other hand, to say the evidence he provides is not very convincing, is insufficient, only represents a very, very small number of a very large set of hands played, and also requires the testimony from people whom no one is able to talk to anymore, I'm fairly confident most people, including me, would agree with all of it, perhaps to varying degrees.

But to say his claims are "without evidence," as unconvincing as it may be to you, is completely off the mark. When the prosecutor holds up Exhibit A in court, and you, as the defense, simply say "that isn't evidence," good luck winning a case, even if Exhibit A is something very trivial. [/quote]
Could you please point me to this "evidence"? Unless of couse, you mean a couple of random hands he posts which are not evidence at all and have been discredited by other bloggers.
A vague reference to cigarette lighters is not evidence.

[Winstonm]

[quote name='The_Hog' date='Oct 16 2009, 06:53 PM'] [quote name='jjbrr' date='Oct 16 2009, 09:05 PM'] snipped

Rik [/QUOTE]
Did you read all the posts in the blog? Wolff does provide evidence. I can't believe you keep saying there is no evidence whatsoever. If you were, on the other hand, to say the evidence he provides is not very convincing, is insufficient, only represents a very, very small number of a very large set of hands played, and also requires the testimony from people whom no one is able to talk to anymore, I'm fairly confident most people, including me, would agree with all of it, perhaps to varying degrees.

But to say his claims are "without evidence," as unconvincing as it may be to you, is completely off the mark. When the prosecutor holds up Exhibit A in court, and you, as the defense, simply say "that isn't evidence," good luck winning a case, even if Exhibit A is something very trivial. [/QUOTE]
Could you please point me to this "evidence"? Unless of couse, you mean a couple of random hands he posts which are not evidence at all and have been discredited by other bloggers.
A vague reference to cigarette lighters is not evidence. [/quote]
It's in the aluminum tubes that were moved to Syria before the invasion.

[MFA]

fred, on Oct 17 2009, 01:48 AM, said:

hanp, on Oct 16 2009, 11:03 PM, said:

My impression is that among professional players many have chosen to use the same tricks.

I am surprised by your impression. FWIW my impression is that the game is very clean at its highest levels these days.

I have had a lot of experience playing against almost all of the world's most successful professional partnerships during the past 10+ years. In that time, the number of leading pro pairs who have left me with a clear impression of "cheating" could be counted on one finger - I don't recall how many hearts that shows in the R-S methods...

Almost all of the others top pro pairs (probably several dozen) have left me with a clear impression of "honest".

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

Happy to read this. It's my view too. I certainly don't have Fred's experience, but in Europe I have played against almost all todays top pairs including the top Italians. The greatest pairs and players seem to have flawless ethics, and nobody has given me any reason to think that they don't play an honest game.