[Hanoi5]

I think that when you speak to a lawyer you have to remember that they are led by the law and not neccessarily the fact. Haven't you seen lawyers twist things so that their client gets free? Haven't some murderers been exonerated on charges because they were not 'arrested' properly or because some piece of proof was taken wrongfully? Did you ever watch a movie called 'Primal Fear'?

For me a guilty person/pair is just guilty if they committed the fault. How is that measured? That's where we have a problem. I really think bridge organizations have to define the wrong acts a player could do. Is it the same if somebody willingly plays from the table instead of his/her hand or if they create a system of signals to transmit illegal information? I'm sure not. Is it the same to hide information from your alert that to use non-prescribed ritalin before playing? I don't think so. The infamous pair has been caught in certain acts VERY few people knew about (and no one did anything anyway), one of them has a super power (superhearing) and they've been doing things that have prompted bridge organizations to keep a close eye on them (but nothing has been found, since they don't know exactly what to look for).

I remember when the Doctors were found guilty some people mentioned how stupid they had been and how easy it would be to cheat better. This pair apparently is better but still left an interesting trail which fortunaltely has been, in my opinion, found.

[Trinidad]

 campboy, on 2015-September-10, 10:03, said:

Paul's approach is potentially very robust. However, to get those neat powers of two I suspect he is assuming that all four board positions are equally likely. If they're not that could massively affect the answer (for example, if you never vary your board position and happen to come up against a set of boards on which you never hate a club lead, you'll always get a perfect match).

I think he didn't assume that each position of the board is equally likely. I think he assumed that hating the lead of a particular suit is equally likely for the four suits.

I would think that this is not entirely true, but it will be awfully close to 25%.

Rik

[bridgeqb]

 Hanoi5, on 2015-September-10, 10:29, said:

I think that when you speak to a lawyer you have to remember that they are led by the law and not neccessarily the fact.

Lawyers tend to default to 'due process' which isn't aimed at truth-finding. A player is going to land on the continuum of 'due process' vs 'crime control' partially based on their tolerance for playing in a game with cheats.

Because membership qualification and award retention decisions are neither a criminal or civil trial there is a lots of flexibility in the method that can be in place. Any process where the final guilty decision is not made by world class experts is severely flawed. The need to convince 'mere' national champs or worse <shudder> on any of the 'hands speak' evidence is dealing 'get out of jail free' cards.

From The Oxford Handbook of Criminology p.953 -
....................................
" Models of Criminal Justice
The adversary principle is often characterized as embodying the search for ‘proof’ rather than ‘truth ( Damaska 1973). The search for ‘truth’ is usually said to be embodied in ‘civil law’ systems ( such as the French), which are ‘inquisitorial’. It would be nice if ‘proof’ and ‘truth’ were synonymous and sought with equal viqour, as a leading Chief Constable once advocated ( Pollard 1996). But, using the ‘due process’ and ‘crime control’ models developed by Packer ( 1968), we will see this is unrealistic.

‘Due process’ values prioritize civil liberties in order to secure the maximal acquittal of the innocent, risking acquittal of many guilty people.

‘Crime control’ values prioritize the conviction of the guilty, risking the conviction of some ( fewer) innocents and infringement of the liberties of some citizens to achieve the system’s goals.

Due-process-based systems tightly control the actions and effects of crime-control agencies, while crime-control-based systems, with their concern for convictions, do not. No system can correspond exactly with either model ( just as no system is entirely adversarial or entirely inquisitorial), but in most systems the values of one or the other model appear to predominate. "
...............
I'm definitely on the 'crime control' end of the spectrum, I do not want to play in a game with cheats or even unethical players. Example of a difference - much criminal evidence can be excluded for various reasons, but I see no excuse for any of that approach in bridge-cheating cases. Prior convictions, actions in the past ( not in the specific event/s being dealt with), etc.

[campboy]

 Trinidad, on 2015-September-10, 10:54, said:

I think he didn't assume that each position of the board is equally likely. I think he assumed that hating the lead of a particular suit is equally likely for the four suits.

I would think that this is not entirely true, but it will be awfully close to 25%.

Rik

It seems a pointless thing to assume when you can just count how many times you hated each suit.

Remember, we want to know how unlikely the board placement is to match this set of boards. We don't care how unlikely these particular boards are in the first place, since that's got nothing to do with the players involved, and we should therefore make sure our final answer isn't contaminated by having happened to pick a weird set of boards.

[Aardv]

 campboy, on 2015-September-10, 11:34, said:

It seems a pointless thing to assume when you can just count how many times you hated each suit.

Remember, we want to know how unlikely the board placement is to match this set of boards. We don't care how unlikely these particular boards are in the first place, since that's got nothing to do with the players involved, and we should therefore make sure our final answer isn't contaminated by having happened to pick a weird set of boards.

I've added the counts of suit-signalled-for and impossible-suits to the spreadsheet.

paul

[blackshoe]

 rhm, on 2015-September-10, 02:42, said:

Technically you may be correct for some regions of jurisdictions.

However, from a justice and fairness point of view the level of proof we require to "convict" someone and the safeguards we need should be dependent on the consequences such a conviction has.
Criminal cases are rarely about life and death, even if someone gets convicted.
And there are civil cases like here where the consequences of a conviction is, that you destroy someones reputation and make him an outcast for a long time.

Now, I ask you what safeguards do you consider appropriate in such a case, if not "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Rainer Herrmann

Criminal cases are frequently about incarceration. Nobody's going to lock up a bridge cheater with a bunch of 'bangers and other assorted hardcases.

I would be most happy if there were no cheaters. I would be happy if cheaters were caught and expelled from competitive bridge. I would be happier still if no one ever got wrongly convicted of cheating. But no system is perfect. Compromises must be made. I don't have any particular attachment to specific safeguards. It seems to me the ones currently in place are reasonable.

[GreenMan]

 barmar, on 2015-September-10, 10:03, said:

I've never seen such a form when playing in an NABC event. IANAL, but I'm not sure whether you can really sign away your right to sue. For instance, I would expect similar contracts to be in place in professional sports leagues, yet Tom Brady was able to take his suspension over Deflategate to court. But it presumably depends on the jurisdiction.

Brady is a member of a union that has a collective bargaining agreement with the NFL. His case went to arbitration as the agreement calls for, then he went to court to claim that the process was not neutral.

The Olympics and other sport organizations also specify that the Court of Arbitration for Sport is the sole body that has jurisdiction to hear disputes. Its decisions can be appealed to the Swiss supreme court.

Narrowing the choice of jurisdiction seems like a sensible step, otherwise actions could be filed pretty much anywhere.

[mike777]

You miss the main points

Brady has millions to fight
Brady had union with millions willing to fight


the rest is nonsense

IN fact the whole issue is nonsense

However the winner seems to be everyone...I mean you
More money...more betting...more money... more betting....did I mention more money more interest?

[rhm]

 bridgeqb, on 2015-September-10, 11:10, said:

Lawyers tend to default to 'due process' which isn't aimed at truth-finding. A player is going to land on the continuum of 'due process' vs 'crime control' partially based on their tolerance for playing in a game with cheats.

Because membership qualification and award retention decisions are neither a criminal or civil trial there is a lots of flexibility in the method that can be in place. Any process where the final guilty decision is not made by world class experts is severely flawed. The need to convince 'mere' national champs or worse <shudder> on any of the 'hands speak' evidence is dealing 'get out of jail free' cards.

From The Oxford Handbook of Criminology p.953 -
....................................
" Models of Criminal Justice
The adversary principle is often characterized as embodying the search for ‘proof’ rather than ‘truth ( Damaska 1973). The search for ‘truth’ is usually said to be embodied in ‘civil law’ systems ( such as the French), which are ‘inquisitorial’. It would be nice if ‘proof’ and ‘truth’ were synonymous and sought with equal viqour, as a leading Chief Constable once advocated ( Pollard 1996). But, using the ‘due process’ and ‘crime control’ models developed by Packer ( 1968), we will see this is unrealistic.

‘Due process’ values prioritize civil liberties in order to secure the maximal acquittal of the innocent, risking acquittal of many guilty people.

‘Crime control’ values prioritize the conviction of the guilty, risking the conviction of some ( fewer) innocents and infringement of the liberties of some citizens to achieve the system’s goals.

Due-process-based systems tightly control the actions and effects of crime-control agencies, while crime-control-based systems, with their concern for convictions, do not. No system can correspond exactly with either model ( just as no system is entirely adversarial or entirely inquisitorial), but in most systems the values of one or the other model appear to predominate. "
...............
I'm definitely on the 'crime control' end of the spectrum, I do not want to play in a game with cheats or even unethical players. Example of a difference - much criminal evidence can be excluded for various reasons, but I see no excuse for any of that approach in bridge-cheating cases. Prior convictions, actions in the past ( not in the specific event/s being dealt with), etc.

Your descriptions is correct, your conclusions are faulty.
Due process is in deed designed to protect the innocent ones. That's why it is important.

But it does not follow, that due process protects the guilty ones as well.
Cheating is a bit like crime in a society. It can not be eradicated completely.
Some societies have a low crime rate, few people in prison and their due process follows a high standard with very few miscarriages of justice even though their detection rate is high.
Other countries have a high crime rate, a lot of people in prison and their due process is poor with many miscarriages of justice.
To be good in both - due process and prevent cheating - to a large extent requires in the first place good precautions, with which I do not mean going electronic.
For example the fact that hand records are now archived but are available to the public and big events get video taped allows for much better retrospective analysis than before.
This is similar to what fingerprints and DNA samples did to the evidence needed to convict criminals.
No surprise that we now have two famous incidents in quite a short period of time.
In fact it should not be too difficult to develop software, which can automatically detect suspicious patterns from the archives.
For example on BBO I have seen rating classifications, which rate some BBO players of my country as "world class" , even though I have never heard about them and though I do not play much nowadays, I think I know or have at least heard about almost anyone who is a mere expert in my country.

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

 rhm, on 2015-September-11, 01:42, said:

Your descriptions is correct, your conclusions are faulty.
Due process is in deed designed to protect the innocent ones. That's why it is important.

But it does not follow, that due process protects the guilty ones as well.
Cheating is a bit like crime in a society. It can not be eradicated completely.
Some societies have a low crime rate, few people in prison and their due process follows a high standard with very few miscarriages of justice even though their detection rate is high.
Other countries have a high crime rate, a lot of people in prison and their due process is poor with many miscarriages of justice.
To be good in both - due process and prevent cheating - to a large extent requires in the first place good precautions, with which I do not mean going electronic.
For example the fact that hand records are now archived but are available to the public and big events get video taped allows for much better retrospective analysis than before.
No surprise that we now have two famous incidents in quite a short period of time.
This is similar to what fingerprints and DNA samples did to the evidence needed to convict criminals.

Rainer Herrmann

you confuse low crime rates with low conviction rates.

For example see Italy.

Many countries basically ignore crime...see you
-------

Keep in mind in America one out of 3 get away with murder....crime pays

I bet more in your country.

[rhm]

 mike777, on 2015-September-11, 01:50, said:

you confuse low crime rates with low conviction rates.

For example see Italy.

Many countries basically ignore crime...see you
-------

Keep in mind in America one out of 3 get away with murder....crime pays

I bet more in your country.

I had not Italy in mind and I spoke about a high detection rate. I did not mention any countries by purpose, but since you did...
I am pretty sure nowadays the country I live in (Germany) does at least as good a job as the US in crime detection and clearance and convicting the guilty ones.
But that may depend on the type of crime.
The clearance rate for murder (once established) in Germany is quite high.
To get away with murder in Germany requires in all likelihood that the cause of death by an outside force remains undetected.
But Germany is by no means perfect.

Rainer Herrmann

[mike777]

clearance rates are a joke...a joke... a myth


Keep in mind this please..

If you think you are great at crime based on clearance rates...a joke.

As I mention in USA we love this joke ...ignore this joke and move on...

We love to say ....crime solved...no one served crime...we move on....a joke.


the vast number of us just move on.....we have no idea..no idea how many of you serve time.

Basically we are afraid to tell you many many get away with murder.

Many in Europe worse

[campboy]

 Aardv, on 2015-September-10, 17:45, said:

I've added the counts of suit-signalled-for and impossible-suits to the spreadsheet.

Thanks. It looks like the non-uniformity of these makes about a factor of 2 difference to the final figure. Instead of your 1 in 5,592,405 (chance of fit for any mapping) I get 1 in 2,676,939. That's for one particular scenario that's consistent with your data (I don't know e.g. how many boards both hearts and diamonds are impossible, so I just made something up), but the difference between choices should be minor in comparison, and I tried to make my choices fairly typical.

[mike777]

 rhm, on 2015-September-11, 02:45, said:

I had not Italy in mind and I spoke about a high detection rate. I did not mention any countries by purpose, but since you did...
I am pretty sure nowadays the country I live in (Germany) does at least as good a job as the US in crime detection and clearance and convicting the guilty ones.
But that may depend on the type of crime.
The clearance rate for murder (once established) in Germany is quite high.
To get away with murder in Germany requires in all likelihood that the cause of death by an outside force remains undetected.
But Germany is by no means perfect.

Rainer Herrmann

crime is weird here where I live.

this past weekend in my tiny town roughly 5-7 killed....more than ten wounded.. The reports say nothing about their race or color. One was 7 years old. Again one town...one weekend.

For some reason we think black on black crime.... perhaps brown on black or brown...we have zero proof per news.
----

to see more weird crime look at where I grew up south side of Chicago.....

[quiddity]

I haven't had time to read through all the posts; I apologize if this question has already been answered and thanks in advance if you could point me to it.
I'm surprised the ACBL had to be so careful in this case. I was under the impression that as a membership organization they had the right to refuse membership to anyone for any reason or no reason at all, assuming they're not discriminating against a protected class. Previous suspension for cheating plus barred from the Cavendish for suspected cheating sounds like reason enough to have gotten rid of them two years ago.

[hrothgar]

 mike777, on 2015-September-11, 04:44, said:

crime is weird here where I live.

this past weekend in my tiny town roughly 5-7 killed....more than ten wounded.. The reports say nothing about their race or color. One was 7 years old. Again one town...one weekend.

----

You might want to consider moving

I just looked at the crime rate for Natick for the last decade or so. There was a murder back in 2013.
I need to go all the way back to 2003 to find another.

I took a look at Framingham which is a bit grungier (Methadone clinic, etc.)
There hasn't been a killing there since 2009. On average, you might be one every three years or so.

[billw55]

 quiddity, on 2015-September-11, 11:27, said:

I haven't had time to read through all the posts; I apologize if this question has already been answered and thanks in advance if you could point me to it.
I'm surprised the ACBL had to be so careful in this case. I was under the impression that as a membership organization they had the right to refuse membership to anyone for any reason or no reason at all, assuming they're not discriminating against a protected class. Previous suspension for cheating plus barred from the Cavendish for suspected cheating sounds like reason enough to have gotten rid of them two years ago.

I thought so too. But as someone else mentioned, they have been sued over this before, maybe that is what has them frozen with fear.

[barmar]

In the case of bridge professionals, if ACBL (or some other bridge organization) suspends a player, it doesn't just affect their membership in the organization. It affects their ability to earn a living, so I suspect it could fall under some kind of "restraint of trade" law. Also, the cheating determination is a defamation of character.

I suspect mikeh may be able to shed more light on the specific laws that get invoked in these lawsuits.

[blackshoe]

It affects their ability to earn a living by playing bridge. While people have a right to earn a living, I'm not so sure they have a right to do so by whatever means they choose. My response to a bridge pro who got caught cheating and who then complained "you've taken away my right to earn a living!" would be "no we haven't, we just aren't going to let you do it in our tournaments or clubs. Go find some other game to cheat in."

[steve2005]

5) is amazing,! taking the sheet to make up partner's hands at the common table. That could easily be a lifetime ban.