SNIP... Many of the posters know nothing and yet just post for the sake of posting. Wait for a properly held Inquiry {emphasis added} to be conducted.
Somehow, I doubt Ron meant for me to look at the available evidence, but since there is some disagreement over what the evidence actually shows I took the time to review it. I started with what is available from youtube. My notes about what I observed is in the very long spoiler below. The actual observations include timing of coughs and how it fits, or doesn't fit my perceived notion of the alleged coughing system. Then I read the Eddie Wold notes and looked at hands from round 3, then I read the notes from the WBF appointed monitor for round 5 and 6.
My observation on opening lead asking coughs it was 2 for 2 in the video session (the WBF monitor would have it 4-4 because he used a multi-cough code to ask for a lead on two boards.. I had a different opinion on the multi coughs). Either way, that is supportive but not proof of cough for lead. Eddie Wold I think had four-four opening lead coughs, but we will ignore those as self-serving. In the round 6, the WBF monitor had them 2 for 2 with the normal signal and added one more for the extra cough signal that matched. So Just using the direct cough for lead (and ignoring Eddie wold;s notes) the direct cough (one to four) matched up with opening lead all 4 times (two in each session), The coincidence of one to four coughs only occurring on the four hands where partner was going to lead, and then partner leading the suit corresponding to the one to four coughs is too difficult to overlook. There were seven lead chances in the youtube video and eight in the round 6 hand record. On each of the four hand where there was direct cough to alleged lead, the partner lead the corresponding suit. The cougher could have coughed from one to four times, and the leader had four choices to choose from but the lead matched the cough each time. At random if the cough and leads were not related. There would be a 1/4 chance the lead would match. So 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/4 = or 1 in 256 chance of this being a random coincidence. This does not include Eddie Wolds notes (which if can be believed would have added three more cases, or 1 in 16,384.
Then there is the coughing for shortness. In the hands I observed, the Germans never coughed with balanced or semibalanced hands. That is, on boards 1,2, 5-16 they had 19 such hands (individual hands) between them and they did not cough once. 0 for 19. On the nine individual hands where they did hold shortness they did cough (9 for 9). Without regard to the meaning of the cough, out of 28 chances to cough, they only coughed on hands with shortness. If there was an equal likelihood to cough with or without shortness, that is they are just as likely to cough at any one time as another, this becomes a binary comparison. The chance they would cough and they would have shortness (or not have shortness) would be 1 out two of 1/2. So this 1/2 x 1/2... 28 times (since they never got one wrong coughing with shortness and not without). The chance of some random occurring event to occur the same way 28 times in row is 1 in 268,435,456. This number gets larger than the odds of winning Warren Buffett's billion dollar NCAA contest if you include the hands noted by the WBF monitor for Session 6. I think, regardless of what the number of coughs mean, if we just test the hypothesis that they cough only with some shortness otherwise pass, the chance that the coughing is instead random is, well, one in more than a quarter billion on the youtube video data alone. How can anyone ignore that observation (check the video for yourself).
As far as the coughing code for short suits, it is only slightly more complicated than one for clubs, two for diamonds, etc. Wladow's cough was 100% until the final board of the video, where he coughs for a short club (he also has short heart), then after his partner opens a weak 1NT he takes control and drives to 4♠ (no need to cough as he knows where he will play). ELINESCU coughs matched the alleged code on three of six hands with shortness. On the other three hands with shortness, he coughed, but the code did not match exactly. On two of these hands he also showed a two suiter, and on the third he had an unusual eight card suit. It is at least possible such hands use a slightly different code -- or the WBF monitor understanding of the code (which I just read today) might be "more" correct than mine.
I don't want to influence anyone's opinion, but my belief is that most bridge players who deal with odds frequently, when confronted with the timing of coughs and the subsequent hand shapes or opening leads would conclude, that the coughs can not be at random events, at least not from a statistical stand point. Feel free to point out the error of this INQUIRY into the issues. Note as always, the observations and any views or opinions expressed in this post are mine, and do not necessarily express the views of BBO or other forum moderators.
CAUTION... DO NOT READ THE SPOILER UNLESS YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT I THINK I OBSERVED ON EACH HAND IN DETAIL. IN REALITY IT IS MEANT FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE WATCHED THE VIDEO AND THINK THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF UI TO HAVE A POINT OF REFERENCE TO DISCUSS OUR DIFFERENT VIEWS OF WHAT WE ARE SEEING.
Spoiler
Watching the ELINESCU - WLADOW Bali video's on You Tube.
First, Wladow had a very short cough before the boards were place on the table. Obvious that shows nothing, but it was a cough and there was a statement that during the match there was no other coughing (that was an earlier round when Eddie Wold was at the table). Nothing particularly noteworthy in the removal of the hands, although Wlado did take his hand out first and look at it very fast (at 5:09 in video), but then, so did Roger Bates. Wlado did push the tray (5:15) toward north with the tray clearly tilted so that the side closest to West is pushed further with the tray under his hand control.
At 5:32 Elineschu coughs one covering his mouth with his hand. Note on this hand, Elineschu has a singleton HEART and a very long club suit (eight of them). At 6:18 Elineschu opens 2♣ without another cough. Wladow does not cough at all on this hand. Elineschu coughed again while passing the tray (6:49). Wladow bids 2♦ and passed the tray (7:27), this time shoving the tray through. Eliseschu makes his bid of 3♣ and then at 7:48 Elineschu coughs twice while pushing the board back to South.
Wladow bids 3NT, ending the auction. Someone may have coughed after the end of the auction, it might have been Wladow, it is hard to tell.
EVIDENCE, only Elineschu coughed and he did have a short suit. The first cough was a single and was clearly NOT shortage in clubs (as he had eight of them). His opening bid of 2♣ clearly would cancel any "clubs is short" message. IF one wanted to attach a meaning, maybe it would be "extra length in clubs", but that is speculations. There were three more coughs. The first the first time the tray was passed to South, then two the second time the board was passed to South.
So a total of four coughs, if that means singleton spade they are in a world of hurt in 3NT. If the first cough meant Extra long clubs, then only two coughs later would be needed to show short hearts. However, looking at the hands, one wonders why the auction wasn't 2C-2D-3C-3H-3S-3NT. On this hand, Wladow didn't check for a heart fit (holding five to the AT) or a spade stopper (holding a "small" doubleton). Without any evidence, someone might suggest that second cough was an "additional" extra club, and the double cough on the second bid was short hearts. No evidence to support that conclusion.
EVIDENCE.
Wladow did not cough during the auction and he had a balanced hand (but five hearts). That is in agreement with the proposed coughing method. Elineschu coughed a total of four times, but had a singleton heart, not spade. This hand either is counter to the alleged illegal signal method or the method is slightly more sophisticated than proposed. It would have to be the single cough then open 2♣ is extra length. Then the cough when pushing the tray is "extra length" again. Then the two later coughs is not for diamonds (a cough is not needed to show short clubs, so one cough would be short diamonds, two coughs short spades). This is a reach without further evidence which might take a long time to get an eight card club suit again.
==========
Board two
Elineschu is balanced and Wladow has a singleton spade. Further Wladow has only 2 HCP (two jacks) and a singleton spade. Wladow very quickly takes the hands out of board two (10:22) and looks through them very fast then leans into the table (10:25), he seems disinterested in putting the tray on the table or pushing it under. The tray appeared to be going through with the edge nearest East further in than the side next to West, but Garey Hayden grabbed the tray and altered its final position.
At 11:24 as Hayden is opening 1NT someone, somewhere coughs twice. There is no indication who that might be. Wladow passes. Bates bids 2♣, the tray is pushed through by Wladow (this time also with WEST side "deepest", then Wlado coughs four clear, loud times (11:59). The coughs are not "realistic" this time to me but that is subjective.
A further note, each time Wladow pushes the tray through it is hardly pushed at all, not like the first hand.
EVIDENCE. The four coughs by the hand with singleton spade and no cough by hand without shortage is in full agreement with supposed code. No lead directing cough was given.
-----------
2013 Bali USA GER v4 <<---- Starts after opening lead on Board 4
Board 4.
No information for review as auction and opening lead are both over before we join in progress.
EVIDENCE - NOTHING CAN BE USED EITHER WAY
Board 5.
Elineschu has a singleton heart and is the dealer. Like on Board 1 where he also has a singleton heart, he coughs once when he bids 1 ♦ (12:03). He makes two very soft, very non-real coughs when he passes the tray over to the other side (12:12). Wladow bids 1♠ no cough, no shortness,
No cough before opening lead.
EVIDENCE, Three coughs by north, none by south agrees with the alleged code.
Board 6.
Wladow has a singleton club, gives one cough as he passes (around 17:40). Elineschu has no short suit and doesn't cough. During the auction Wladow bid ♥ then raised Elineschu's ♦. After the auction Wladow coughed multiple times even though he is going to be dummy.
EVIDENCE. Wladow's one cough corresponds to the distributional theory as does Elineschu's non-cough with no shortness. Wladows several coughs after the auction is over is different from the round where Eddie Wold said there was no cough at his table other than during auction and just before opening lead.
Board 7.
Elineschu gives one cough before Wladow, as dealer, makes his first bid (24:33). Wladow passes, Bates opens 1♥, Elineschu doubles 1♥ then at while Hayden is thinking, gives a soft cough at 25:52, then a third cough as the tray is pushed under to Wladow (three in total), he has a singleton heart.
No cough before opening lead.
EVIDENCE - Three coughs by Elineschua, who holds singleton heart, no cough by Wladow who had no short suit.
BOARD 8.
Wladow has a singleton spade. It was Bates bid (then going to Elineschu), but Wladow had two series of double coughs (around 35:40). Elineschu had no shortness and didn't cough. Wladow used a michaels cue-bid. Around 38:00, after Bates cue-bid 3♥ (unusual versus unusual in support of Hayden's 1♠ opening bid (in otherwords immediately after passing the tray), Wladow coughed twice which sounded more like a hybrid between a sneeze and a cough.
EVIDENCE. The four coughs by Wladow corresponded to singleton spade. No coughs by Elineschu who had no shortness. The surprise two coughs after passing the tray is either outside of the announced possible code. A testable possibility is that one cough at that time would show the club suit for the michaels cue-bid and two coughs would show diamonds. Wladow held diamonds. This possible correlation requires evidence that such a cue-bid can be hearts and either minor.
Board 9.
No short suits, no coughing during the auction. Elineschu and Wladow played the contract so no potential for lead cough.
Evidence - no coughing during bidding or play, no short suits
Board 10.
53:48, Wladow waiting for Hayden to open cough's twice. He has a diamond void. Hayden opens 1NT, Wladow shows a heart suit with a 2♦ bid, Bates uses lebenhsol to show clubs and a heart stopper. About the time that Wladow opens, Elineschu coughed once (54:30 he has odd hand, short heart and short club). Elineschu then coughed a second time (After passing) as he pushed the tray back to the other side (he had passed, cough at 56:53). This is a hand that lead to a lot of discussion on BridgeWinners, where the 4♠ bid on four card suit to the Queen was justified by the initial double of 3NT asking for a spade lead. Well, I will say that in non-competitive auction (1NT-3NT) double by some are for spade lead. But here Elineschu partner bid hearts (via a 2♦ bid) and Bates had bid a natural and showed a heart stopper via a 2NT then 3NT rebid, this in not at all clear. I will also say that looking at the german's convention card did not list this as a special double asking for a spade, nor was the double alerted on either side of the table as it would be if it had a "special meaning".
EVIDENCE
Wladow coughed twice, and had a singleton diamond. Elineschu coughed once early, and had a singleton club. Then he coughed later after passing when transferring the tray back to the other side, clearly EW did not have 11 diamonds, so the question what the second cough might be. Short heart might be inferred, but that is speculation. IF West is short in ♥ and ♣, it makes bidding 4♠ way easier.
Start of Board 11 (finished below in next video)
This one is worth watching just for the freak out by Wladok. What happened is Wladok becomes very upset over the play on on board 10. This happens a few seconds after he has removed his hand from board 11 and closed the door to the other side. On board 10, Wladok went down in 4♠ when he should (could) have made it. Bates lead his lowest diamond from xxx and Hayden with ♦AQJxx behind dummy played the QUEEN when dummy played low (hiding the jack). Wladow ruffed the queen and later in the hand had the ♦K from dummy covered by the ace and he ruffed that. Eventually when he played a diamond from ♦T9 and Hayden didn't cover he didn't let it run. Even then, it was too late to make the hand, he had to play the ♥Q from ♥Q9 long earlier and if not covered let it run, then take the diamond hook. Anyway, he seemed quite upset with the carding although it all seems fair and logical (the small diamond by Bates was singleton or three small so Queen is right card, and bates CC says small from xxx. This was quite animated and there was a request for adjustment. The contract looks down one on the face of it (five spades, three diamond ruffs and a slow diamond), so it is not clear what adjustment he wanted, and I may misunderstand some of it.
This takes a quite few minutes and involves interaction with Bates who seems confused, the vugraph operator, the TD and sounds like his team captain who is kibitzing outside the view of the camera. There is a lot of confusion and talking. 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. 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. Bates, who noticed the card being pulled back at 1:12:40 is looking at his hand by the time this possible alert has occurred. This is the first opening bid of 1♣ by the German pair in this match. Their method is, when not vul, and opening bid of 1♣ is artificial and "Strong" (15+), but when vul, 1♣ is natural and limited. After opening 1♣ Wladow is still upset about the play on board 10 and is animated and interacting with his team captain off camera, Bates looks up at Wladow then, but Wladow is turned towards his captain. At 1:13:06 Bates hand grabs the "DBL" card which is quickly laid on the tray at 1:13:08 (no alert). Wladow points to the Dbl at 1:13:09 and immediately pushes the tray to the "other side" while leaning in to see what Bates says. By 1:13:10 the tray is on the other side of the screen. Bates, now realizing something is up, reaches for the tray and pulls it back and it has returned to South-East side by 1:13:11 and Bates has moved the double to the middle of the bidding area on the tray in front of him. For the record, Bates=Hayden play DOUBLE of a strong club as two suits the same color. The lack of the alert by Bates and his hand supports the clear visual evidence that he did not see the alert by Wladow (which we know by watching the video anyway).
The Director comes and while Wladow is doing most of the talking, we hear Bates say "you didn't announce it" (clearing meaning the alert to 1♣). At 1:14:53 Bates seems to say he was thinking about his cards (this might be in response to Wladow's potential claim that he did alert the 1♣ call, I can't tell what Wladow is saying most of this time). Wladow does appear to say after this to the director "Mister I did alert the bid" . The director ask him if he wrote it no a scratch paper. Wladow animated that he "hit it" (I think that is what he said, no he didn't actually tap the bid with his rapid point at 1:13:09). In describing his action to the director and insisting he alerted the bid, he picked up the blue alert card and waived it (around 1:15:35), clearly he did not use the blue card when he made the bid if that is what he is trying to say. The director then seems to ask if Bates Alerted his double, and Wladow seems to answer not. At 1:16:53 the very calm director ask Wladow "are you sure that you alert". Wladow;s answer is he picks up the alert card and turns it like that is what he did (clearly he did not). The director seems to get the ruling right based upon the video evidence when he allows Bates to change his DBL to pass. 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).
The auction proceeds with a negative 1♦ by Elineschu (who clearly alerts both his partners bid and his 1♦ and a double by Hayden who not only finger pointed at the double but also then used the blue alert card, to show a two suiter same color.
The video ends here and is picked up during the play in 2013 Bali USA GER v3. There was no coughing during this prolonged portion of the auction and neither German player had a short suit.
----------
2013 Bali USA GER v3 <<---- Starts in the middle of board 11 auction.
Continuing Board 11 from the double of the negative 1♦ by Hayden. Wladow has apparently been looking at the American's CC and Bates is writing something about what the double means. Finally Wladow angrily throws the Bates CC back on the table and passes.
it very angrily on the table. Then he ask Bates what the double means, Bates writes something, clearly two suits same color from both the convention card and the hand held and the later Bates leap to 4♥. Then at 1:12 Wladow coughs five clear times. He holds no shortness. It is not clear what these five coughs might mean (other than I need to cough) however we will see later another five/six coughs on another hand. After this pass, the germans do not bid anymore.
The auction ends in 4♥ with Elineschu on lead. Wladow coughs four times (missed the time mark, but it was somewhere around 5:28), and Elineschu leads a spade.
EVIDENCE. The lack of a cough on the first round of the bidding (at the end of the v4 video) coincides with the hypothesis that they do not cough when holding no shortness. This was a very long first round with no coughing. The four rapid coughs before the spade opening lead and a hand that would want a spade opening lead seems to agree with the hypothesis as well. On the other hand, spades was the unbid suit so one might suppose a spade would be lead anyway. Wladow held ♠KJxx ♥Ax ♦Qx ♣AQxx (clubs had been bid naturally after the double by his LHO so he would not want a club lead).
On Board 12,
Once again Wladow very quickly takes his hand out, looks at it, then handles the tray. He pulls it to his side, but not all the way. He has a very poor hand with a singleton spade. His partner has a diamond void, and not a particular great hand.. it is ♠xxx ♥KQxx ♦ void ♣KJT932. Elineschu vul versus non-vul at imps, jumps to 3♣ after Bates opened 1♠. However, before he bids 3♣, Elineschu coughs twice (11:54) at the nearly the same time, Wladow coughs four times (11:59). At 17:10 Bates pushes the tray back to the other side and Wladow becomes quite animated. Not sure if it is because Bates moved the tray, but it appears that way to me.
No cough before the opening lead. No lead would appeal to Wladow from his hand.
EVIDENCE. The two coughs by Elineschu and four by Wladow coincided with shortness. The timely four coughs by Wladow might make the vulnerable preempt to 3♣ more likely. Hayden more reasonably decided to overcall 2♣ instead of 3♣.
Hand 13,
Elineschu is dealer and has a void in hearts. He passed and coughed once at 19:57 and once more when he pushed the tray through at 20:09 after Hayden opened a strong 1♣. Wladow passed without coughing. He had a balanced hand. After Bates responded 1♦, Elineschu jumped to 2♠, which on this auction showed spades and an undisclosed minor.
The auction continued with Hayden bidding 3♥, Wladow raising to 3♠ (no coughing), Bates bidding 4♥, Elineschu carrying on to 4♠, Hayden passed and Wladow had a coughing fit that doesn't sound natural, not sure how many, five? Six?
At the end of the auction there was no cough
EVIDENCE. Elicenschu did have shortage, and he did cough. But unless I missed a cough, he only coughed twice (two single coughs). He did show a major and a minor, so it is possible the two coughs done in this manner show shorteness in the higher of the other two suits -- which must be hearts. But this hand and Board number 1, the coughing by Elineschu is not directly related to the code (unless I missed a cough).
No lead cough, although someone in the background coughed about the time of the opening lead.
Hand 14.
No shortness, no coughing. They played the hand, so no opening lead cough possible. Two random coughs by someone during play... interesting argument between TD an Wladow around 37:40
EVIDENCE - only lack of coughing
Hand 15.
No shortness, no coughing. They played the hand, so no opening lead cough possible
EVIDENCE - only lack of coughing
Hand 16.
Wladow has a singleton heart AND a club void. Elicenschu has no short suit. Wladow coughed once at 47:44 while the tray was on the other side of the table. Elineschu opened a weak notrump, Hayden overcalled 2♦ (showing hearts) and Wladow doubled 2♦ (presumably showing his long diamonds). Bates bid 2♥ and Elineschu doubled (no alert), Bates did have four hearts to the KTxx. Wladow never coughed again (in any effort to show short hearts) but he leaped to 4♠ ending the auction, so hardly any need.
EVIDENCE - Wladow coughed once and had a club void. He never indicated his heart shortness, but he did show long diamonds and spades and the opponents competed in hearts. I think this is still in agreement with the alleged code.
As an aside, I would not enjoy playing at Wladow's table even if he is 100% innocent of cheating. There were a number of instances where he seemed a very unpleasant. I detailed one over an alert/non-alert issue in the spoiler above (deal 11 at the end of one video (#4) and the beginning of another (#3 don't ask me why they are numbered backwards). Basically Wladow gave an inappropriate (too mild) and unseen alert that lead to a confrontation. If you want to read about that, it is both in the larger spoiler above, and the same text is cut-and-pasted in the shorter spoiler below to keep anyone interested in that topic from wading through the larger spoiler above.
Spoiler
This one is worth watching just for the freak out by Wladok. What happened is Wladok becomes very upset over the play on on board 10. This happens a few seconds after he has removed his hand from board 11 and closed the door to the other side. On board 10, Wladok went down in 4♠ when he should (could) have made it. Bates lead his lowest diamond from xxx and Hayden with ♦AQJxx behind dummy played the QUEEN when dummy played low (hiding the jack). Wladow ruffed the queen and later in the hand had the ♦K from dummy covered by the ace and he ruffed that. Eventually when he played a diamond from ♦T9 and Hayden didn't cover he didn't let it run. Even then, it was too late to make the hand, he had to play the ♥Q from ♥Q9 long earlier and if not covered let it run, then take the diamond hook. Anyway, he seemed quite upset with the carding although it all seems fair and logical (the small diamond by Bates was singleton or three small so Queen is right card, and bates CC says small from xxx. This was quite animated and there was a request for adjustment. The contract looks down one on the face of it (five spades, three diamond ruffs and a slow diamond), so it is not clear what adjustment he wanted, and I may misunderstand some of it.
This takes a quite few minutes and involves interaction with Bates who seems confused, the vugraph operator, the TD and sounds like his team captain who is kibitzing outside the view of the camera. There is a lot of confusion and talking. 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. 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. Bates, who noticed the card being pulled back at 1:12:40 is looking at his hand by the time this possible alert has occurred. This is the first opening bid of 1♣ by the German pair in this match. Their method is, when not vul, and opening bid of 1♣ is artificial and "Strong" (15+), but when vul, 1♣ is natural and limited. After opening 1♣ Wladow is still upset about the play on board 10 and is animated and interacting with his team captain off camera, Bates looks up at Wladow then, but Wladow is turned towards his captain. At 1:13:06 Bates hand grabs the "DBL" card which is quickly laid on the tray at 1:13:08 (no alert). Wladow points to the Dbl at 1:13:09 and immediately pushes the tray to the "other side" while leaning in to see what Bates says. By 1:13:10 the tray is on the other side of the screen. Bates, now realizing something is up, reaches for the tray and pulls it back and it has returned to South-East side by 1:13:11 and Bates has moved the double to the middle of the bidding area on the tray in front of him. For the record, Bates=Hayden play DOUBLE of a strong club as two suits the same color. The lack of the alert by Bates and his hand supports the clear visual evidence that he did not see the alert by Wladow (which we know by watching the video anyway).
The Director comes and while Wladow is doing most of the talking, we hear Bates say "you didn't announce it" (clearing meaning the alert to 1♣). At 1:14:53 Bates seems to say he was thinking about his cards (this might be in response to Wladow's potential claim that he did alert the 1♣ call, I can't tell what Wladow is saying most of this time). Wladow does appear to say after this to the director "Mister I did alert the bid" . The director ask him if he wrote it no a scratch paper. Wladow animated that he "hit it" (I think that is what he said, no he didn't actually tap the bid with his rapid point at 1:13:09). In describing his action to the director and insisting he alerted the bid, he picked up the blue alert card and waived it (around 1:15:35), clearly he did not use the blue card when he made the bid if that is what he is trying to say. The director then seems to ask if Bates Alerted his double, and Wladow seems to answer not. At 1:16:53 the very calm director ask Wladow "are you sure that you alert". Wladow;s answer is he picks up the alert card and turns it like that is what he did (clearly he did not). The director seems to get the ruling right based upon the video evidence when he allows Bates to change his DBL to pass. 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).
The auction proceeds with a negative 1♦ by Elineschu (who clearly alerts both his partners bid and his 1♦ and a double by Hayden who not only finger pointed at the double but also then used the blue alert card, to show a two suiter same color.
The video ends here and is picked up during the play in 2013 Bali USA GER v3. There was no coughing during this prolonged portion of the auction and neither German player had a short suit.
Ben, I think Elinescu's code for short hearts are two coughs - one around the time it's his turn to bid, the other before he pushes the tray through.
As for the alerting situation: I agree that Wladow probably lied about how he alerted. My impression is that lying to directors/committees has been the normal thing to do for this pair. So whatever you think of their teammates responsibility, they did play with a pair of cheats, and they knowingly played with an unethical pair.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
* what an 'auction' is (Does it start when someone is having a first look at his cards? Or does it start with the first call?)
* what the 'beginning' and 'end' of an auction are (Are there other stages of the auction as well, perhaps during which a number of coughs has no meaning?)
* whether they were asumed to signal on EVERY board (If not, how could the hypothesis still be refutable? - Statisticians, help!)
etc.
or else our observations would likely disagree. To some extent we might also be able to "see what we want to see".
RTFLB.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
No Ben, the "Inquiry" obviously wasn't aimed at you. Your analysis is very thorough. Ok here is what I believe. Yes, this pair is not a pleasant pair to play against; they are arrogant and rude. This is from my own experience, (though I only played against them once). They certainly are suspect. There may or may not be something in the coughing. It is such a stupid method of cheating that I cannot believe intelligent players would resort to this.
The hearing was certainly not held with the correct principles of justice in mind. I do not intend to mention the reasons again as they have been posted many times.. As someone posted, the circumstances under which the hearing was held, its location and the chairperson are unbelievable for Europeans to comprehend. I think this is so blatant that I would not be at all surprised to see the Doctors sue the WBF and win. Then where are we?
As state before, I find the comments and the people who posted on the BW thread in particular to be amusing. Sapire's example hands and the commentary thereon is infantile in its logic. In the case of some of the posters, one of whom is an international author, the mock outrage is a case of "pot calling kettle". I know this as a fact as it happened against my partner and myself some years ago. The perpetrator was certainly found guilty, but suffered only minimal consequences. I will not post names publicly but if anyone wants a pm on the issue, I will oblige with an answer.. The other one, who has been mentioned a number of times, is a most unethical player. Again this is from personal experience. I am talking about hesitating and making great use of hesitations, pulling cards and holding them above the table before I or partner play, and asking pointed questions eg "Was that a cue bid or showing length in the suit?", and this with a holding of KQxxx, making a sacrifice child's play to find. I find it amusing that this person has a certain "following" amongst posters here and on BW.
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?
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
No Ben, the "Inquiry" obviously wasn't aimed at you. Your analysis is very thorough. Ok here is what I believe. Yes, this pair is not a pleasant pair to play against; they are arrogant and rude. This is from my own experience, (though I only played against them once). They certainly are suspect. There may or may not be something in the coughing. It is such a stupid method of cheating that I cannot believe intelligent players would resort to this.
Has there ever been a method of cheating that didn't seem stupid after it was detected?
"....The hearing was certainly not held with the correct principles of justice in mind. I do not intend to mention the reasons again as they have been posted many times.. As someone posted, the circumstances under which the hearing was held, its location and the chairperson are unbelievable for Europeans to comprehend. I think this is so blatant that I would not be at all surprised to see the Doctors sue the WBF and win. Then where are we?..."
I quote the Hog only in part but hopefully in context, please read entire post #145.
Clearly some if not many here feel this was a miscarriage of justice.
Based on what I have read in these posts it seems that the Laws of WBF and bridge were carried out in full.
We need to hear the other side of this more fully.
I only note there may be disagreement between the "correct principles of justice"
and following the laws of WBF and bridge.
Clearly in America there is constant tension between the "correct principles of justice" and "following the law". These need not be the same.
No Ben, the "Inquiry" obviously wasn't aimed at you. Your analysis is very thorough. Ok here is what I believe. Yes, this pair is not a pleasant pair to play against; they are arrogant and rude. This is from my own experience, (though I only played against them once). They certainly are suspect. There may or may not be something in the coughing. It is such a stupid method of cheating that I cannot believe intelligent players would resort to this.
LOL... yes Ron, I knew you weren't talking about me... I tried to make a joke... to start the long post. Also, I didn't address the "trial", nor do I plan to now. I was just surprised to read a comment from 'bianca21 that "This entire cheating business is rubbish/" and "There is a financial interest involved here. And there is something to be said about sad losers....."
I can understand the complaints about the trail (not gong to discuss it). but I was surprised someone like biancia21 would basically say the entire cheating was rubbish and motivated by financial interest and being sore losers. So I thought I had only read what others had said about the case, and that there was 2 hours of video of one of the sessions. So I could look at it for myself and see what I could find.
It is hard to deny what I found. Without applying any meaning to the number of coughs during the auction just comparing when coughs occurred on 14 hands (28 individual partnership hands) is noteworthy. I will add that other than two exceptions (one before board one was even on the table and one by Wladow when he was about to but the dummy down, these pair was only coughed during the 9 auctions and after two auctions before the opening lead (by the non-leading partner). It seems very odd that the coughing (except for the two exceptions) was only during or at the very end of an auction.
So from my point of view, if the coughing was random (I need to cough), it would have happened more during the play (which was more of the time than the bidding). The limiting of coughing (with the noted exceptions) to only auction was odd. But here is my point. If coughing was random (during bidding phase only) how much of coincidence would it be that these random coughs only occurred on hands with shortness? My estimate above is clearly wrong (I have been told), so I have come up with a new estimate which I will put into another thread in the water cooler. But after watching the video and the coughing, I want to know if anyone can reasonable use the argument that biancia21 used that the allegation of cheating was rubbish?
Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.
Posted 2014-April-19, 23:32
mike777, on 2014-April-19, 21:05, said:
Clearly some if not many here feel this was a miscarriage of justice.
Based on what I have read in these posts it seems that the Laws of WBF and bridge were carried out in full.
We need to hear the other side of this more fully.
I only note there may be disagreement between the "correct principles of justice"
and following the laws of WBF and bridge.
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.
ARt you post in partial..shame on you for this post. You are better than this last post. You post great stuff in full context I love to read your posts.
If the point was the posters ...have opposing views ..I agree
If your point is you feel the law was followed ..fair enough.
" that really was not necessary. They were given every opportunity to present their case in writing or by video conference"
This is a nonsensical comment. I assume Art has never taken part in a video conference?
"They were given 2 months notice to prepare their defense"
This is incorrect.
I have evidence to suggest that Art is cheating by breaking wind with various patterns. I will hold a hearing next week in Vientiane Laos. If Art does not appear, the hearing will go ahead and he will have no legal representation. Tough! I might give Art a paper copy of some, but not all of the evidence. There are some videos of Art raising his buttocks during the match. His rho looks pained.
PS I don't really have evidence thank heavens, but this is an analogous situation.
"The King of Hearts a broadsword bears, the Queen of Hearts a rose." W. H. Auden.
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.
Which laws and where are the procedures to be followed for such an incident laid out in advance?
Even if, it is still only fair to ask whether the laws and procedures to be followed are appropriate to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
It is my impression, that the WBF did a reasonable good job to gather the evidence.
It is not my impression that the WBF had clear rules how to handle such an incident before hand and was entering virgin soil even though there had been such incidents before.
I hate trial in absentia. The evidence used by the prosecution was not given in full to the accused and in time to prepare a defense.
I do not accept the statement the WBF or for that matter a country, who follows its laid out procedures, can not do a miscarriage of justice.
It is not very hard to find counterexamples to that, say people imprisoned for decades and sometimes on death rows, who were not guilty.
With regard to Ben's post:
It is the first time I see the sort of statistical evidence I am looking for, namely that the coughing can not be random and the match with the hand pattern is precise.
Whether the evidence is correct and stands up to scrutiny I can not verify, but having a mathematical background myself it sounds convincing to me.
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.
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.
Wladow had clearly alerted his 1♣ bid and it was in my opinion hard to overlook.
Was the alert made and acknowledged in the manner prescribed by the rules? That is is: The alert must be made by placing the Alert Card over the last call of the screen-mate, in his segment of the bidding tray; the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the Alert Card to his opponent.
I know that almost nobody actually does this, but if you choose not to alert in the correct way it's your responsibility to ensure that your alert is recognised as such. If you alert in a non-standard way and your screenmate misses it or misinterprets it, it's your fault and it's misinformation.
Of course, this incident tells us nothing about whether they were cheating or not.
This post has been edited by gnasher: 2014-April-20, 02:05
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
Paragraph 6 of the report of the hearing says "... a response was provided dated 14/02/14 to the allegations of potential bias or prejudice and a request that the Defendants confirm within seven days whether or not they wished her [Georgia Heth] to be removed as chairman of the panel. No such request was received within that seven-day period."
Assuming that's true, I think the complaints about the composition of the panel are unfounded, although one might object to the defendants' being given so little time to respond to this.
This post has been edited by gnasher: 2014-April-20, 02:05
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
Was the alert made and acknowledged in the manner prescribed by the rules? That is is: The alert must be made by placing the Alert Card over the last call of the screen-mate, in his segment of the bidding tray; the alerted player must acknowledge by returning the Alert Card to his opponent.
I know that almost nobody actually does this, but if you choose not to alert in the correct way it's your responsibility to ensure that your alert is recognised as such. If you alert in a non-standard way and your screenmate misses it or misinterprets it, it's your fault and it's misinformation.
Of course, this incident tells us nothing about whether they were cheating or not.
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.
I am not sure whether the written rules make a distinction here whether screens are in place or not.
For example nobody uses the stop card when screens are in place where I play.
Paragraph 6 of the report of the hearing says "... a response was provided dated 14/02/14 to the allegations of potential bias or prejudice and a request that the Defendants confirm within seven days whether or not they wished her [Georgia Heth] to be removed as chairman of the panel. No such request was received within that seven-day period."
Assuming that's true, I think the complaints about the composition of the panel are unfounded, although one might object to the defendants' being given so little time to respond to this.
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.
Help
the hog, on 2014-April-18, 17:32, said: