[mike777]

 rhm, on 2014-April-20, 02:27, said:

I have no reason to doubt that the WBF followed the rules it had in place.
But my main point is I am not convinced that they are appropriate. Ron makes a good hypothetical case above, why not.
You get the impression that the WBF convinced itself as a prosecutor and jury in one that cheating took place.
The case for a fair committee hearing was of lesser importance, except for giving out the punishment.

Rainer Herrmann

They may indeed not be appropriate but you don't provide a better measurement or argument.

Indeed you do not provide a method to end the debate.

[rhm]

 mike777, on 2014-April-20, 02:34, said:

They may indeed not be appropriate but you don't provide a better measurement or argument.

Indeed you do not provide a method to end the debate.

Do you think that's my duty?
(I readily admit it is easier to criticize than to do it better)

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

:


YES

[the hog]

Mike, don't be silly. Neither Rainer nor anyone else who is an ordinary b. player has a duty to this. No one says it is easy either. However, don't you and others believe that everyone, guilty or not, is deserving of a fair hearing. I don't think the procedures were fair. Michael Gromoeller, (do you know who he is? A former World Champion), doesn't either. Rainer doesn't. I am sure there are many others.

[cherdano]

 rhm, on 2014-April-20, 02:13, said:

To clarify my statement Wladow did not alert according to the above rules. He used his forefinger and at least where I play this is how most people alert behind screens.
Also Wladow had alerted his bids that way all the time and so did the other players.

From watching the video, it seemed to me that

• Wladow alerted the bid by briefly pointint at it twice, while Bates was starring somewhere else,
  
• Bates did not acknowledge the alert, and
  
• Wladow later claimed to the director that he alerted using the alert card.

Do you disagree with any of that?

[blackshoe]

 the hog, on 2014-April-19, 20:04, said:

These are the things I find annoying. All of us have been guilty of some of these offences, the question is what is the measure of guilt? To those not familiar with German, and I know Arend is of course, I suggest you look up the word "Scheinheilig." I suspect many of the BW posters and quite a few of the posters here are guilty of this. Are you Arend?

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.

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.

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

[rhm]

 cherdano, on 2014-April-20, 04:38, said:

From watching the video, it seemed to me that

• Wladow alerted the bid by briefly pointint at it twice, while Bates was starring somewhere else,
  
• Bates did not acknowledge the alert, and
  
• Wladow later claimed to the director that he alerted using the alert card.

Do you disagree with any of that?

I looked at the video (again) and saw Wladow alerting.
If Bates claimed he did not see the alert consciously I have no reason to doubt that, even though the alert was clear but quick (in my opinion) and I could not see Bates looking in a different direction.
Wladow's command of English is poor. He used the alert card to tell to the director that he had alerted 1♣.
He did not understand initially what the director wanted to know, that is in what form he alerted.
It was accepted that he did not alert with the alert card and the director let Bates change his bid.

So I disagree with the last sentence above and claiming that would be stupid since the German team captain (Karen Schroeder, not visible in the video, but I recognize her voice) was observing the match and did the translation for Wladow.

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

 the hog, on 2014-April-20, 04:27, said:

. I am sure there are many others.

There are also people who agrees with the suggestion of the author of this article

Which tells me we have extremists in both sides

[cherdano]

 the hog, on 2014-April-19, 20:04, said:

These are the things I find annoying. All of us have been guilty of some of these offences, the question is what is the measure of guilt? To those not familiar with German, and I know Arend is of course, I suggest you look up the word "Scheinheilig." I suspect many of the BW posters and quite a few of the posters here are guilty of this. Are you Arend?

What do I have to do with this?
I am convinced that W-E were cheating.
I am also convinced that any good player had to know for a long time that they routinely lie to directors and committees. I would never play with such players as teammates, would you?
(I do realize that this is easy for me to say. If playing with them would mean playing on the national team, maybe that would affect my judgement subconsciously.)

[the hog]

Blackshoe,I suggest you shut your trap. Both these instances were reported and acted upon. In one case the perpetrator was sacked from his position as a correspondent on Australian Bridge. So you know absolutely nothing about what you were posting.

[MrAce]

Frankly, I am convinced that doctors are cheating and I expressed my opinions accordingly in multiple forums. However I can not say I disagree with what Ron and Rainer said. In fact Rainer made some very good points both in BBF and BW forums. Only thing I strongly disagree with Ron is his upvote of the complete nonsense post by Bianca. But he has all the right to do so, just like I have my right to disagree.

I hope WBF did not do a lousy job which may actually work for the benefit of these doctors. I do not have the knowledge or education to judge whether they did or not in the eye of law. We will see.

[Cyberyeti]

Justice may or may not have been done, I have no strong opinion on that.

Justice has IMO definitely not been seen to be done due to the procedures adopted, and in many ways that seems as important.

[cherdano]

 cherdano, on 2014-April-20, 04:38, said:

From watching the video, it seemed to me that

• Wladow alerted the bid by briefly pointint at it twice, while Bates was starring somewhere else,
  
• Bates did not acknowledge the alert, and
  
• Wladow later claimed to the director that he alerted using the alert card.

Do you disagree with any of that?

 rhm, on 2014-April-20, 05:36, said:

I looked at the video (again) and saw Wladow alerting.
If Bates claimed he did not see the alert consciously I have no reason to doubt that, even though the alert was clear but quick (in my opinion) and I could not see Bates looking in a different direction.
Wladow's command of English is poor. He used the alert card to tell to the director that he had alerted 1♣.
He did not understand initially what the director wanted to know, that is in what form he alerted.
It was accepted that he did not alert with the alert card and the director let Bates change his bid.

So I disagree with the last sentence above and claiming that would be stupid since the German team captain (Karen Schroeder, not visible in the video, but I recognize her voice) was observing the match and did the translation for Wladow.

Rainer Herrmann

Well, that's not what I see (though admittedly some of it is open to interpretation and guessing). Starting at 1:16, the director tries to ask him multiple times "How did you alert?" Wladow first refuses to answer, even after Karen Schroeder translates the question for him, stops her from answering the question herself, and then finally (shortly before 1:17) again makes the gesture of alering with the alert card two times. Since the only question at that time was "how", it would be strange to do this unless you wanted to imply that is how you alerted.
(I also do not believe Wladow's English is so bad that he does not understand "How did you alert?". He seems quite articulate in comparison when complaining about the US's pairs hesitations.)

[Cascade]

 ArtK78, on 2014-April-19, 23:32, said:

This is an incredibly schizophrenic post. On the one hand, there was a miscarriage of justice. On the other hand, the laws of the WBF and bridge were carried out in full. On the other hand, we need to hear from the other side more fully.

I read the WBF report. While the meeting in Dallas did not give the accused a real opportunity to appear in person, that really was not necessary. They were given every opportunity to present their case in writing or by video conference. They were given 2 months notice to prepare their defense. They chose to do nothing but protest the procedure.

The German Doctors have every right to protest the procedure. What they do not have the right to do is to ignore their opportunity to present a defense. In every judicial proceeding, if an accused is given an opportunity to present a substantive defense to the charges against him, a failure to avail himself of that opportunity amounts to a waiver. Normally, one does not get two bites at the apple. Now, it may very well be that the Doctors will get the opportunity to present their defense in some subsequent proceeding. But by failing to avail themselves of the opportunity granted to them by the WBF to present their defense at the hearing in Dallas, they will, in the minds of many, if not most, of the world's bridge players be considered guilty as charged, regardless of the outcome of any subsequent proceeding.

The WBF report: https://docs.google....c/preview?pli=1

In many jurisdictions the accused would be entitled to some form of natural justice or the equivalent. I don't know if there is likely to be any exception here.

Assuming natural justice applies. The procedure may be in violation of that by holding the hearing at a remote location, remote from the accused. Essentially it could be considered that choosing the location deprived the accused of their right to be heard. Just as Ron's example illustrated.

[rhm]

 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.

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

Let me be clear.
If you have a procedure assigned to such an incident, you can not change it on the spot.
Nobody suggested that Herr Wenning should chair the committee or be member of the jury.
I also understand that unfortunately another eligible member had passed away shortly before.

Still there were easy to avoid misjudgments.
Among others:
Why was the DBV indicted? A very silly idea. Do you really believe the WBF would have indicted the ACBL or USBF if an US pair would have been accused?
The DBV asked for a postponement because the annual meeting of the DBV where all representatives had to be reelected was long fixed for this weekend.
According to Mr Wenning, a member of the WBF anti doping committee for years, even a postponement of a couple of days during the Vanderbilt in Dallas would have allowed a representative of the DBV to fly in and take part.

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

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.

[the hog]

Arend, oh please! Are you as pure as the driven snow in your ethics at the table? You have NEVER taken advantage of the rules? That is what I mean by scheinheilig
I can't say I haven't.


Mr Ace, yes I probably agree with your previous point. But to be honest I was pissed off.

[cherdano]

 the hog, on 2014-April-20, 06:33, said:

Arend, oh please! Are you as pure as the driven snow in your ethics at the table? You have NEVER taken advantage of the rules? That is what I mean by scheinheilig
I can't say I haven't.

You really insist on personalizing this?
I have taken advantage of the rules, for example I have frequently accepted penalties for a revoke. Is that what you meant to ask? I cannot remember taking advantage of UI if that's what you meant. That doesn't make me holier-than-thou; I only play bridge for fun. Working out a bridge problem using UI isn't fun for me.
But what does that have to do with pairs who cheat, or pays who lie to directors and committees?

[Trinidad]

 rhm, on 2014-April-20, 00:45, said:

With regard to Wladow's behaviour at the table. I did not look through the complete video but I checked the incidence at the end of video 4 and beginning of video 3 mentioned in Ben's post and I must say I disagree. I also understand German.

Wladow had clearly alerted his 1♣ bid and it was in my opinion hard to overlook.

When I play with screens, it is very rare for people to actually follow the screen regulations literally. Practically nobody places the alert card on the bid and waits for his opponent to return it.

Practically everybody alerts by pointing at the bid, and making 100% sure that the screen mate sees that. Sometimes a gesture is made signifying the meaning of the call: 2 fingers for a 1♣ opening show that it could be a doubleton, a fist and some show of biceps show that it is strong (and artificial). There are gestures for transfers (index finger makes an arc forward ("from here to there"), cut throat doubles (index finger across throat), positive and negative bids (thumb up/down) and the number of keycards is shown by the amount of fingers in the air. When there is no signal to explain, the meanings are whispered to the screen mate. All these are clear violations of the screen regulation: you need to write down the meaning of bids. However, they all follow the spirit of the regulation and the game: warn your opponents and disclose actively.

Having said that "everybody" violates the regulations, I have never seen anybody make an alert as fast as Entscho Wladow does in the video. Though he does point at his bid, the speed and intent with which he does it is completely atypical: He doesn't check whether his opponent notices the alert, which is what "everybody" does (or - when in doubt - alert twice). (In fact, Wladow actually seems to check that his opponent did not notice the alert.)

[Edit: Removed some content since I seemed to have missed part of the discussion]

Rik

[aguahombre]

 rhm, on 2014-April-20, 06:12, said:

Why was the DBV indicted? A very silly idea. Do you really believe the WBF would have indicted the ACBL or USBF if an US pair would have been accused?

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.

Whether one or more of us disagrees with the WBF's official position on that issue, repeatedly asking "why?" after receiving the answer is the silly part. Move on to the reason for disagreement; you already have been told why.