Elinescu-Wladow banned

[nige1]

And another appears to be from Pakistan. So Nigel was wrong about twice as many of them as he was right about.

Further correspondence was received from the Defendants continuing with their challenge to the legitimacy of the hearing and the involvement of jeffrey Polisner as Prosecutor and Georgia Heth as Chairman of the Panel, on the premise of their being American and members of the American Contract Bridge League ("ACBL" the National Bridge. Organisation ("NBO") of the team that made the original complainant)

The objections to the protocol, location of hearing, and persons handling the investigation/prosecution were all dealt with by the WBF and by the committee.

Correspondence was received from Ulrich Wenning as President of the DBV dated 26th February 2014 requesting an adjournment of the date of the hearing,- he explained that the Federation was holding its annual general meeting during the weekend fixed for the hearing and its officers were already committed to being involved with those meetings and would not be able to attend the hearing

The Parties were informed that the hearing was fixed and would proceed on the date stated. lf the Parties wished to have the opportunity of making an appearance by way of a conference video cali that this would be arranged for them. The Parties were again reminded of the right to submit any written representations.

There is no indication that people were told what to find or what not to look for.

... He provided Bertrand Gignoux with a copy of the code determined by Manolo Eminenti and asked him to see if it was used by Wladow-Elinescu during the Cavendish....

I seem to have been mistaken in thinking that the commsision were all ACBL members. Sorry. Nevertheless. the main argument is unaffected: Americans and ACBL members should have recused themselves from the tribunal. More effort should have been made to hold the the hearing at a place and time convenient to the alleged cheaters and the German NBO. (Incidentally, the 3 prosecution witnesses were also from Europe).

[hrothgar]

I seem to have been mistaken in thinking that the commsision were all ACBL members. Sorry. Nevertheless. the main argument is unaffected: Americans and ACBL members should have recused themselves from the commission. More effort should have been made to hold the the hearing at a place and time convenient to the alleged cheaters and the German NBO. (Incidentally, the 3 prosecution witnesses were also from Europe).

 

You seem to be assuming that that the DVB officials wanted to attend this hearing...

 

If I were running the place, I'd want to stay as far away from these proceedings as possible (while providing a convenient excuse)

I am aware that the head of the DVB has been providing a spirited defense of him team mates. Haven't seen much else from the organization.

[helene_t]

The American team was not a party in this case. It was akin to a criminal case, not a civil one. Maybe if one of the judges had a close relationship to one of the American players who reported the incident there could have been an issue.

 

But I think this is silly.

[Cascade]

Wayne are you really suggesting that as the affair was between a team from the USA and a Team from Germany that Judges from the USA should not be used ???

 

Not necessarily. I do not know the people involved. It is possible that there could be no bias or perceived bias. I would have thought though the norm in an international event would be to avoid possible conflicts of this type.

 

I just know that it is a principle that one biased adjudicator is enough to taint the entire committee. That is even if a committee votes unanimously in favour of some ruling and it is subsequently found that one member is biased or has a perceived bias that is enough to have a ruling overturned. So in this case saying the judges were from the US and one judge was from the US makes no difference IF it is perceived that a US judge will necessarily be biased.

[Cascade]

The American team was not a party in this case. It was akin to a criminal case, not a civil one. Maybe if one of the judges had a close relationship to one of the American players who reported the incident there could have been an issue.

 

But I think this is silly.

 

There are other ways biases might be perceived Helene. For example it might be perceived that since the USA2 team potentially could be elevated to first place that their is a bias with a US judge.

[nige1]

The American team was not a party in this case. It was akin to a criminal case, not a civil one. Maybe if one of the judges had a close relationship to one of the American players who reported the incident there could have been an issue. But I think this is silly.

It's a question of appearances. Whenever judges of such allegations are of the same nationality as the suspects or the accusers, in some eyes, justice is compromised. For example…

 

e.g. The WBF referred Reese and Schapiro to be dealt with by the (British) BBL but after the scrupulously thorough Foster-Bourne Enquiry exonerated them, the WBF (with Americans -- the same nationality as their accusers) repudiated the verdict.

 

e.g. When the WBF referred the Burgay scandal to the Italian Bridge Federation, it suspended the accuser and lost the vital tapes.

 

There may be no national bias in such cases but, IMO, for justice to be seen to be done, judges should not belong to the same nation or national organisation as accusers or accused.

[gnasher]

The thing that always bothers me in these cases is wondering how prevalent cheating is at the upper echelons. Every time a pair gets caught, it seems they have been under suspicion for years and years. Often the pairs that get caught are doing something pretty blatant and honestly kind of dumb. It makes me wonder how many top flight pairs are "under investigation" at any given time, and how many simply have a more subtle way to cheat. Really a sad situation.

I don't really know, but I think probably very few top pairs are using illegal communication.

 

Most people are honest, or at least want to have a reputation for honesty.

 

For a player who does want to gain illegally, the easiest ways to do it are by misusing traditional UI, and by not disclosing your methods properly. It seems quite hard work to design a workable cheating mechanism, and I expect that using it would take a lot of mental energy and make your other thought processes less effective.

[mike777]

Ok so

1) who were the judges?

2) Who were the jury?

3) who appointed the judges and jury?

4) who prosecuted the accused?

5) who defended the accused?

6) what is the appeal process and who?

 

Or was all of the above the same person?

[aguahombre]

Ok so

1) who were the judges?

2) Who were the jury?

3) who appointed the judges and jury?

4) who prosecuted the accused?

5) who defended the accused?

6) what is the appeal process and who?

 

Or was all of the above the same person?

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_6gbBWyyA_wVXI4RFRuQmVXNXc/preview?pli=1

[ArtK78]

In my opinion, if anyone has a problem with the procedure followed by the WBF in this case, then almost nothing will meet his or her standards.

[Aberlour10]

[i took a look at the DBV site, there is actually only a short statement of the President.

 

One sentence about the verdict....and he complains (?) that the Commission did not use both DBV statements in process of reaching the verdict.

 

Here both DBV statements from March 13th and 20th>>>

 

 

 

 

13th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4155

 

 

 

20th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4156

[cherdano]

I don't really know, but I think probably very few top pairs are using illegal communication.

 

Most people are honest, or at least want to have a reputation for honesty.

 

For a player who does want to gain illegally, the easiest ways to do it are by misusing traditional UI, and by not disclosing your methods properly.

In my view the most easily abused UI is about doubletons versus singletons. (Slow spot card lead -> can't be a singleton.)

My guesses are:

• The percentage of top players who would abuse this type of UI is significant.
  
• The percentage of top players who would avoid leading a doubleton quickly (so as not to mislead partner guilty of the previous point) is not negligible.
  

[the hog]

Wayne are you really suggesting that as the affair was between a team from the USA and a Team from Germany that Judges from the USA should not be used ???

 

As the complaint which was acted upon was from the USA team, you are quite correct - a US judge should not have been used.How much greater validity and impact would it have had had the proceedings been held in Europe and had none of the judges been from the US, but the tribunal had reached the same decision?

[mike777]

To be fair we are not told of the WBF process that lead to the where and who were appointed.

 

For all we know Non America may not have been an option.

 

In the past money or the lack of money has been a huge issue for the WBF.

 

For many years it received massive aid from just one guy.

[Cascade]

[i took a look at the DBV site, there is actually only a short statement of the President.

 

One sentence about the verdict....and he complains (?) that the Commission did not use both DBV statements in process of reaching the verdict.

 

Here both DBV statements from March 13th and 20th>>>

 

 

 

 

13th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4155

 

 

 

20th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4156

 

These paint a very different picture.

[nige1]

In my opinion, if anyone has a problem with the procedure followed by the WBF in this case, then almost nothing will meet his or her standards.

[i took a look at the DBV site, there is actually only a short statement of the President. One sentence about the verdict....and he complains (?) that the Commission did not use both DBV statements in process of reaching the verdict. Here both DBV statements from March 13th and 20th>>>

13th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4155

20th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4156

Did the commission receive the 2nd DBV letter in time to consider any of its rebuttal evidence or argument for the defence? The commission report doesn't refer to the letter or its contenfs. The DBV also complain that they received type-written transcripts rather than photocopies of the original evidence, that several items of evidence were missing, and that they couldn't access much of the video evidence.

[mrdct]

[i took a look at the DBV site, there is actually only a short statement of the President.

 

One sentence about the verdict....and he complains (?) that the Commission did not use both DBV statements in process of reaching the verdict.

 

Here both DBV statements from March 13th and 20th>>>

 

 

 

 

13th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4155

 

 

 

20th March http://www.bridge-ve...icture/doc/4156

There seems to be quite a material discrepancy between the final WBF report and the statements made by DVB as to whether or not Elinescu-Wladow denied the allegations. One can only presume that the DVB statements of 13/3 and 20/3 never made it into the hands of the tribunal which is worrying from a procedural fairness point of view.

 

In matters of justice, perceived conflicts of interest are probably even more important than actual conflicts of interest. It was highly sub-optimal to hold the hearing in the USA and a poor decision to have anyone from Zone 1 or 2 on the panel. The panel should've been chaired and comprised of people completely free of any suggestion of bias and the hearing should've been held at a time and place convenient for all parties.

 

I will bravely predict that the inevitable appeal will not have any Americans on the adjudicating panel.

[nige1]

deleted

[Cascade]

In matters of justice, perceived conflicts of interest are probably even more important than actual conflicts of interest.

 

Indeed. Perceived bias is more important because they are much more common since they are much easier to establish. Even when there is a real bias or the suspicion of a real bias then it is often easier to simply claim a perceived bias.

[cherdano]

Indeed. Perceived bias is more important because they are much more common since they are much easier to establish. Even when there is a real bias or the suspicion of a real bias then it is often easier to simply claim a perceived bias.

 

Things are a little bit different when everyone can check enough of the evidence by themselves.

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/livebridgewebcam1

[Antrax]

The thing that always bothers me in these cases is wondering how prevalent cheating is at the upper echelons. Every time a pair gets caught, it seems they have been under suspicion for years and years. Often the pairs that get caught are doing something pretty blatant and honestly kind of dumb.

I don't think cheating is that common. If I were cheating, the fear of getting caught would make me so nervous that I wouldn't be able to play. I think it takes a psychopath to cheat effectively

 

I have some experience with investigating similar situations. There are two categories of cheaters. The common one is the crime of opportunity. You "forgot how the play went", you didn't understand the claim wasn't valid, you revoke and try to conceal it. Those are people whose moral judgment is clouded briefly, it's usually a relatively isolated incident, and even when not caught it eats at them.

 

The other type are the premeditated, habitual cheaters. Those tend to feel invincible after a while, they feel self-righteous about their cheating (often deciding everybody else is doing it and they're just leveling the playing field) and they always make increasingly dumb mistakes until they're caught. There's something about getting away with it that makes people believe they're smarter than everybody else, and that causes them to gradually become more blatant. Maybe the cognitive dissonance erodes at their belief there's anything to conceal, maybe there's an element of rush to it that disappears if you don't really risk capture, I don't know for sure.

 

The point is, you may think only the dumb ones get caught, but it's more accurate to say that cheating makes you stupid after a while.

[aguahombre]

It seems forum posters here have spent a lot more effort on the behalf of the perpetrators than the perpetrators have. And, they don't even like them.

[the hog]

It seems forum posters here have spent a lot more effort on the behalf of the perpetrators than the perpetrators have. And, they don't even like them.

 

No AGH, I just get peed off when players automatically condemn others without knowing all the facts. I don't know the facts either, but my attitude is that the hearing was certainly suspect in some areas.

[mrdct]

It seems forum posters here have spent a lot more effort on the behalf of the perpetrators than the perpetrators have. And, they don't even like them.

I'm not sure which thread you are reading, but I haven't seen anything in this thread which is supportive of the perpetrators; just a bunch of quite sensible posts supportive of procedural fairness and natural justice.

 

Trials in absentia are inherently distasteful and when they're tainted by completely avoidable perceived conflicts of interest and the apparent exclusion of statements and evidence in support of the accused, it is only fair to cry foul.

 

I have little doubt that the "perpetrators" are guilty, and indeed a***holes, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be given a proper opportunity to defend themselves.

[paulg]

Appearances are very important and the WBF looks to have been naive to hold the hearing in Dallas. Especially when the European Bridge League publishes a photo of its Executive Council meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland on 28 March, a traditional neutral venue. David Harris attended both events.