nullve

What has been proved is (at most) that B-Z were cheating or that their bid placements were unconscious tells. Or maybe one can tell the difference by just looking? From a comment on Bridgewinners (http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-videos-shout-balicki-zmudzinski/?): To which Nicolas Hammond replied: Of course, West was neither Balicki nor Zmudzinski, but Brogeland himself.

Sorry for stating the obvious, but it seems like the laws force the players to play a form of Prisoner's Dilemma with 'call the director'/'accept the claim' instead of 'defect'/'cooperate'. In an ideal world maybe no player would call the director over something like this, but there's no question what the optimal strategy is if the overarching objective is to win bridge tournaments and not e.g. to repair a damaged reputation.

Improvement(?): 1♠-1N(5-12, NF); ?: P = 10-12, 5S4m / 11-13, 5S(332) 2♣ = Gazzilli-like: 4+ H / strong (= rule of 25+) 2♦ = Muiderberg-like: 9-11, 5S5D / 12-14, 5H5m / 13-15, 5S3-H4m ...(...) ...2N = relay, GF unless Opener has 9-11, 5S5D ...(...) 2♥ = 9-11, 5S5C / "10-12 or 16+" (rule of 19-21 or 25+), 6+ S 2♠ = "13-15" (rule of 22-24), 6+ S (...), 1♠-1N; 2♦-2N; ?: 3♣ = 12-14, 5S5D / 13-15, 5S4D ...3♦ = relay ......3♥ = 5242 or 5S5D .........3♠ = relay ............3N = 5242 ............4♣+ = 5S5D ......3♠ = 5143 (5044) ......3N = 5341 3♦ = 9-11, 5S5D, NF 3♥ = 12-14, 5S5C / 13-15, 5224 ...3♠ = relay ......3N = 5224 ......4♣+ = 5S5C 3♠ = 13-15, 5134 (0544) 3N = 13-15, 5314 Similarly: 1♥-1N(5-12, NF); ?: P = 10-12, 5H4O / 11-13 5H(332) 2♣ = Gazzilli-like: 12-14, 5H5m / 13-15, 5H4O / strong (= rule of 25+) ...2♦ = positive relay ......2♥ = Lucas-like: 12-14, 5H5C / 13-15, 5H4O .........(...) .........2N = GF relay .........(...) ......(...) ...(...) 2♦ = 9-11, 5H5m / 10-12 or 16+" (rule of 19-21 or 25+), 6+ H 2♥ = "13-15" (rule of 22-24), 6+ H (...) 1♥-1N; 2♣-2♦; 2♥-2N; ?: 3♣ = 12-14, 5H5D / 13-15, 5H4D ...3♦ = relay ......3♥ = 2542 or 5H5D .........3♠ = relay ............3N = 2542 ............4♣+ = 5H5D ......3♠ = 1543 (0544) ......3N = 3541 (4540) 3♦ = 13-15, 4522 or 45(31) ...3♥ = anti-SPL C / relay ......3♠ = 4513 ......3N = 4522 ......4♣+ = 4531 ...3♠ = anti-SPL D ......3N = 4522 or 4531 ......4♣+ = 4513 3♥ = 12-14, 5H5C / 13-15, 2524 ...3♠ = relay ......3N = 2524 ......4♣+ = 5H5C 3♠ = 13-15, 1534 (0544) 3N = 13-15, 3514 (4504)

Maybe 1♣-1♠ 1N-2♦1) 2♥2)-2♠3) 2N4)-4♣5) 4♦6)-4♠7) 5♥8)-6♠ P 1) ART GF 2) 4 H 3) 5+ S 4) 2434, most likely 5) Splinter, setting S as trumps 6) cue, liked 4♣ 7) no H ctrl, NF 8) cue, good hand in context (even for a hand that liked 4♣)

jfnrl, in my experience, passing 1N on minimum hands with 5S5m is quite bad, although it's something I've done in the past because it makes things easier/prettier/better when Opener doesn't have that hand type. Also, I wouldn't want to forego the chance to play 2M with, say, 12-14, 5S5m opposite 5-9, 2S2m after, say, 1♠-1N; 2♥-2♠; P or 1♠-1N; 2♠-P. So I suggest squeezing all these 5S5m hands into your 2♥/♠ rebids. Then by moving everything to a 14-16 NT/rule of 19 context we get: 1♠-1N(5-12, NF); ?: P = 10-12, 5S4m / 11-13, 5S(332) 2♣ = 4+ H / strong (= rule of 25+) 2♦ = 6+ S 2♥ = Muiderberg-like w/ H tolerance: 9-14, 5S2+H5m / 13-15, 52(42) or 53(41) 2♠ = Muiderberg-like w/o H tolerance: 9-14, 5S1-H5m / 13-15, 51(43) or 5044 (...) On partscore deals this is pretty much equivalent to what I play now, which (as you can see above) is close to P = 10-12, 5S4m / 11-13, 5S(332) 2♣ = 4+ H / strong (= rule of 25+) 2♦ = Muiderberg-like: 9-14, 5S5m / 13-15, 5S3-H4m 2♥ = "13+" (rule of 22+), 6+ S 2♠ = "10-12" (rule of 19-21), 6+ S (...), but the former scheme leaves more precious bidding room on game (or slam!) deals when Opener has 5S4+m, when maybe the best I can do is 1♠-1N; 2♦-?: P = 6+ D or gamble, < GF opposite 5S4m 2♥ = 5+ H, < GF opposite 5S4m 2♠ = 2(3) S, < GF opposite 5S4m 2N = relay, GF opposite 5S4m 3♣ = P/C, < GF opposite 5S4m 1♠-1N; 2♦-2N; ?: 3♣ = 9-11, 5S5C 3♦ = 9-11, 5S5D 3♥ = 12-14, 5S5C / 13-15, 5S4C ...3♠ = 5+ H ......3N = 2- H ......4♣+ = 5314 or 5305 3♠ = 12-14, 5S5D / 13-15, 5S2-H4D 3N = 12-14, 5350 / 13-15, 5341 Both schemes work well enough on hands with 6+ S, so overcall I think the former (i.e. yours with modifcations) is potentially a tad better, and my only reason for not playing it is one of aesthetics: I like to play something similar after 1♠-1N as after 1♥-1N, and currently I play something close to 1♥-1N(5-12, NF); ?: P = 10-12, 5H4O / 11-13 5H(332) 2♣ = 9-14, 5H5m / 13-15, 5H4O / strong (= rule of 25+) 2♦ = "13+" (rule of 22+), 6+ H 2♥ = "10-12" (rule of 19-21), 6+ H (...)

What do you do with 5S5m hands that are too weak for the 2♣ rebid?

I'm an advocate of the "pass or bash" philosophy of responding to 1N. This frees up a lot of 2N bids, which allows me to play: 1N-?:: 2♣ = "Stayman", incl. weak hands with 6+ m ...2♦ = no major ......P = 5+ D, weak ......(...) ......2N = "lebensohl" .........3♣ = forced ............P = 6+ C, weak ............3♦-3♠ = GF with 4M4-OM and a a singleton/void. Usually no slam interest. ............Specifically: ............3♦ = SPL M ...............3♥ = relay ..................3♠ = SPL H [hence 4S1-H] ..................3N = SPL S [hence 1-S4H] ............3♥ = SPL C [hence 4M4-OM1-C] ............3♠ = SPL D [hence 4M4-OM1-D] ...2♥ = "H" ......(...) ......2N = "lebensohl" .........3♣ = forced ............P = 6+ C, weak ............3♦ = 6+ D, weak ............3♥-3N = GF with 4S3-H and a singleton/void. Usually no slam interest. ............Specifically: ............3♥ = SPL C [hence 4S3-H1-C] ............3♠ = SPL D [hence 4S3-H1-D] ............3N = SPL H [hence 4S1-H] ...2♠ = "S" ......(...) ......2N = "lebensohl" .........3♣ = forced ............P = 6+ C, weak ............3♦ = 6+ D, weak ............3♥-3N = GF with 4S3-H and a singleton/void. Usually no slam interest. ............Specifically: ............3♥ = SPL C [hence 3-S4H1-C] ............3♠ = SPL D [hence 3-S4H1-D] ............3N = SPL S [hence 1-S4H] (...) 2N = Puppet Stayman 3♣ = 5+D5+C, weak 3♦-3♠ = GF with 3-S3-H and singleton/void. Usually no slam interest. Specifically: 3♦ = SPL M [hence 1-M3-OM] ...3♥ = relay ......3♠ = SPL H [hence 3-S1-H] ......3N = SPL S [hence 1-S3-H] 3♥ = SPL C [hence 3-S3-H6+D1-C] 3♠ = SPL D [hence 3-S3-H1-D6+C]

[hv=pc=n&n=sAQ93&e=s876&s=s54&w=sKJT2]266|200[/hv]

Thx gwnn, I've enjoyed discussing with you.

Sorry, but I find it hard to believe that committing 16 (or 100) digits to memory (using e.g. the method of loci) and calculate e.g. 1+2 or 3+3 modulo 4 is somehow beyond the the ability of some near-WC players. I don't understand why the discussion period needs to be short or why they would have to write down anything (if they're using the method of loci, say). And you can't lol me into believing that the method is too energy-draining, either. Is that obvious? So what? As with any legal agreement.

No, you didn't. I just didn't want to come off as someone incapable of having normal beliefs. :) Yes. Good point. I agree.

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/undetectable-method-of-cheating/ Seems simple enough. Yes, sorry. But then my point is that even the worst cheaters among WC or near WC pairs would be able to come up with something vastly better. Agree.

If mirroring (i.e. subconscious imitation) takes place, that chance might depend on how many boards they've played together.

I stumbled across this when reading about RPS: So if we can unconsciously mimic the actions of our opponents at RPS, maybe we can also unconsciously mimic our partners' actions at bridge. I don't know. EDIT: It seems like phenomenon of "mirroring" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_%28psychology%29) is what I'm looking for.

No, all of your points 1.-8. are logical possibilities and I'm also aware of the (controversial) R-S case: very clever man (Reese), stupid method. But commenting on 1.-8. whith only W-E, F-S, F-N, P-S and B-Z (who, if 7. is true, must all be WC or nearly WC) in mind: 1. Stupider than WC non-cheaters, maybe, but hardly so stupid they couldn't all have come up with something vastly better in every way. 2. Hardly risk assessment of the same quality that they routinely make at bridge table. 3.-7. Probably true. But 'simple' doesn't imply 'easy to crack'. 8. Probably true, but has to do with the decision to cheat to begin with, not the choice of method.

I think there's plenty incentive to cheat at bridge and I'm not enough of a conspiracy theorist to doubt that P-S are guilty when they've already confessed. The case of W-E is interesting to me, because it seemed to me that I was one of the few that actually bothered to look at the video evidence to see if Woolsey's "verdicts" in this thread http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/the-opening-leads-conclusion/ matched what was going on at the table. (And please take a careful look at the methodology and apply it to a pair using Bird-Anthias leads or something else that the world isn't yet familiar with. You could even apply it to Woolsey-Stewart, who seldom lead from a 4-card suit vs. NT, but do not disclose that on their CC. (I'm not saying that they should; it's just that it's a pretty unusual agreement.)) I think you've missed the point here. Drinking from a bottle at poker may well be conscious behaviour and a tell at the same time, since the player isn't aware that he's revealing anything about his hand. Adjusting the tray may be similar, although it even to me looks like pointless behaviour unless the intention is indeed to signal something. Yes. Please entertain the logical possibility that the alleged cheating methods of W-E, F-S, F-N, P-S and B-Z were all devised by your proverbial 5-year old.

Enough to know what people mean when they say that some of the behaviour looks unnatural. I honestly don't know, although I don't see anything wrong with exercising a bit of Cartesian doubt here. For example, am I supposed to equate unnatural-looking behaviour with cheating? Here's Skinner's description of superstitous behavour in pidgeons: "One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner) I'm just pointing to what appears to be a logical possibility here.

Absolutely brilliant.

If operant conditioning is going on on both sides of the screen, it might explain both how tells and Clever Hans-like effects emerge over thousands of boards. So I'm not suggesting that certain players, the von Ostens, need to hook up with certain players, the Clever Hanses, for von Osten-Clever Hans-like partnerships to develop.

Agree. No, but does it or does it not? Is bridge different from poker in this respect? Of course not. But several posters on Bridgewinners have implied that. That's why I came up with the RPS analogy. Consider the RPS analogy slightly off-topic.

Agree. But if a bridge-playing environment is anything like a Skinner box with e.g. good boards as positive reinforcers, I can't see why suit-specific tells couldn't emerge in principle, or even be expected to emerge, over thousands of boards. (Not that I know a lot about operant conditioning, but...)

Sorry for being cryptic. I was just trying to rebut the view that "If someone is cheating, do we have to disclose their full method to prove guilty? No, we don't.Since B-Z use 3 ways to bid(small, normal, large gaps), so if they are innocent they are doing it unconsciously, and it will be quite random. If evidence show that randomness is violated then it is serious, regardless of the exact meaning." (http://bridgewinners...ng-gap-issue-3/) by likening this bidding gap thing to a game of RPS played unwittingly, i.e. not played in order to win or anything. The whole point of the comparison was to suggest that since humans suck at RPS, any bridge player must also suck at randomly choosing a move from the set [small gap, normal gap, large gap}. Hence by the poster's own argument, every bridge player must be cheating, something we know isn't true.

I caught myself doing exactly that the last time I played offline.

You're using intentional language here, already suggesting that the board was put on the other side of the screen deliberately, i.e. that it couldn't possibly be just a tell. But maybe your point is, as your examples suggest, that tells in bridge always consist of rather inconspicuous and involuntary motion, like nervous shaking. Then I want to remind you that in poker, very conspicuous and seemingly deliberate behaviour like drinking from a bottle can also be a reliable tell. So why not in bridge? In a true von Osten-Clever Hans-like partnership, there is no understanding at all! But the Clever Hans-like player will have learnt to use the tells to his advantage, maybe through something like operant conditioning.

Well, everyone seems to assume that in order to prove collusion, it's sufficient to prove that an illegal signal has been transmitted and acted upon. I'll call this view 'transmissionism'. The Clever Hans case, however, indicates that an illegal signal can be transmitted and acted upon without collusion, because, apparently, von Osten didn't know he was signalling and Hans wasn't aware he was doing artihmetic. In bridge, a von Osten-Clever Hans-type pair would be a pair A-B where A had tells he doesn't know about B was using those tells subconsciously Would A-B be cheating? If transmissionism is true, they would. Do von Osten-Clever Hans-like pairs actually exist? For all I know, they may be rule rather than the exception. The game of RPS suggests that we are all von Ostens, because it's notoriously difficult to play a long sequence of moves in RPS that doesn't reveal a pattern that can be exploited by the opponent. In fact, humans suck at RPS compared with certain computer programs. How do we know these signals aren't tells? I'm not saying they are, but a proof of collusion should be based on more than a gut feeling that they are part of a preagreed code. I'm not sure what you mean. von Osten apparently didn't try to manipulate Hans, he just did. And even if we assume that F-N and B-Z were cheating, it doesn't have to be the case that those hand movements or card orientations were deliberate as long as partner knew about them and took advantage. I was trying to rebut this: "If someone is cheating, do we have to disclose their full method to prove guilty? No, we don't.Since B-Z use 3 ways to bid(small, normal, large gaps), so if they are innocent they are doing it unconsciously, and it will be quite random. If evidence show that randomness is violated then it is serious, regardless of the exact meaning." (http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/a-different-approach-on-b-z-bidding-gap-issue-3/)